Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1101

7088×3008 4.48 MB

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
People have been crying about overpopulation being the end of the world as we know it for… I don’t know, at least 400 something years now, right?

I’m not particularly worried about it. [/quote]

How many desperately poor countries have you visited?

How many desperately poor inner cities have you visited?

What do they all seem to have in common, other than the smell?
[/quote]

You live in and have traveled extensively Asia, if I’m not mistaken. I never grasped the problem of literal human excess until I saw India.

Then again, nature itself has solved the problem before, and there is every reason to believe that it will do so in the future, to our great suffering.[/quote]

Yes. Anyone who thinks that overpopulation is “not that big of a deal” needs to visit the slums of Calcutta, or Jakarta, or Hong Kong, or Mexico City.

The technocrats have been racing against the pressures of exponential population growth for centuries, but these have been stopgaps if anything. The map above is instructional. It is a representation of the world with the nations re-scaled based on their population figures. I would like to see something similar for regions in the US. I can predict that anyone who says overpopulation is not a problem for the world is simply someone who is living where overpopulation is not a problem currently for them.

Another thing to consider about the map is that India is set to overtake China as the most populous country on earth. This is a direct result of famously draconian controls on reproduction on China’s part, and the total lack of them on India’s.

1102

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
People have been crying about overpopulation being the end of the world as we know it for… I don’t know, at least 400 something years now, right?

I’m not particularly worried about it. [/quote]

How many desperately poor countries have you visited?[/quote]

None.

Do people sucking dick to survive count as “desperately”?

[quote]What do they all seem to have in common, other than the smell?
[/quote]

Despair.

I’ve also seen a kid born with 4 total fingers pitch in a little league all-star game, and a rape victim become a wonderful, just wonderful, mother of 4.

I’m not about to give up on people or a person for being born poor.

1103

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I don’t usually join these discussions because my thoughts on abortion are too complicated, so I’ll just say that I would rather Push determine abortion law than the staff of Salon. I don’t think a zygote is a person under any reasonable definition of the word “person,” but I’d rather that small error than the one under which sentient, conscious babies are killed to the rabid applause of the Molochites on the feminist far-Left.[/quote]

If consciousness and sentience are your yardsticks, then would you also be opposed to terminating a fetus that was at a stage of development at which it was demonstrably not conscious and not sentient?[/quote]

That is a good question (and one I [very perspicaciously, I will add] thought might come from you). They are not really my yardsticks so much as I was using them to illustrate the far-Left end of the spectrum. What is my yardstick? Well, with regard to personal morality, I am opposed (to at least some degree) to any termination. Legally my position is more complicated, but I can certainly expand when I’m not tapping on a smart phone.[/quote]

A heart beat. Previous to the heart beat, I can deny/rationalize and sleep at night… Post heart beat and I get sick to my stomach thinking about it.

1105

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I don’t usually join these discussions because my thoughts on abortion are too complicated, so I’ll just say that I would rather Push determine abortion law than the staff of Salon. I don’t think a zygote is a person under any reasonable definition of the word “person,” but I’d rather that small error than the one under which sentient, conscious babies are killed to the rabid applause of the Molochites on the feminist far-Left.[/quote]

If consciousness and sentience are your yardsticks, then would you also be opposed to terminating a fetus that was at a stage of development at which it was demonstrably not conscious and not sentient?[/quote]

That is a good question (and one I [very perspicaciously, I will add] thought might come from you). They are not really my yardsticks so much as I was using them to illustrate the far-Left end of the spectrum. What is my yardstick? Well, with regard to personal morality, I am opposed (to at least some degree) to any termination. Legally my position is more complicated, but I can certainly expand when I’m not tapping on a smart phone.[/quote]

Hypothetical:

You have a wife, a five-year old boy, and your wife is carrying a two-to-a-few-celled zygote that just formed minutes ago. A crazed madman–we’ll call him “SexMachine” for grins and for no other reason–is holding all three of them hostage, and makes you choose between shooting the five year old and having your wife take a “plan b” pill to execute the zygote. You must choose one option or they all die.

Which option do you choose? How do resolve this impossible “Sophie’s choice?” What reasons do you have to justify your choice? (you are not Kirk and you can’t rig the program to get a better outcome).

[/quote]

Have talked to my wife about similar type hypothetical in the past.

If I choose her, she’ll kill me herself, lol, and I believe her. As for choosing between my kids, I’m devastated either way, but I’ll be honest and say the 5 year old.

Why? I’ve held her, cared for her. She’s shit on me, puked on me more than a couple times. She’s the one person on Earth that taught me how to love. (You’re forgetting the boy who taught me how to be a man years ago.) Having had her from zygote until now, in my arms and heart, and not a hypothetical, I’m not giving her away without dying myself. Seeing as that isn’t an option, I have to sau I choose her.

1108

A “crazed madman?” What did I do to earn that description?

1109

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I don’t usually join these discussions because my thoughts on abortion are too complicated, so I’ll just say that I would rather Push determine abortion law than the staff of Salon. I don’t think a zygote is a person under any reasonable definition of the word “person,” but I’d rather that small error than the one under which sentient, conscious babies are killed to the rabid applause of the Molochites on the feminist far-Left.[/quote]

If consciousness and sentience are your yardsticks, then would you also be opposed to terminating a fetus that was at a stage of development at which it was demonstrably not conscious and not sentient?[/quote]

That is a good question (and one I [very perspicaciously, I will add] thought might come from you). They are not really my yardsticks so much as I was using them to illustrate the far-Left end of the spectrum. What is my yardstick? Well, with regard to personal morality, I am opposed (to at least some degree) to any termination. Legally my position is more complicated, but I can certainly expand when I’m not tapping on a smart phone.[/quote]

Hypothetical:

You have a wife, a five-year old boy, and your wife is carrying a two-to-a-few-celled zygote that just formed minutes ago. A crazed madman–we’ll call him “SexMachine” for grins and for no other reason–is holding all three of them hostage, and makes you choose between shooting the five year old and having your wife take a “plan b” pill to execute the zygote. You must choose one option or they all die.

Which option do you choose? How do resolve this impossible “Sophie’s choice?” What reasons do you have to justify your choice? (you are not Kirk and you can’t rig the program to get a better outcome).

[/quote]

Have talked to my wife about similar type hypothetical in the past.

If I choose her, she’ll kill me herself, lol, and I believe her. As for choosing between my kids, I’m devastated either way, but I’ll be honest and say the 5 year old.

Why? I’ve held her, cared for her. She’s shit on me, puked on me more than a couple times. She’s the one person on Earth that taught me how to love. (You’re forgetting the boy who taught me how to be a man years ago.) Having had her from zygote until now, in my arms and heart, and not a hypothetical, I’m not giving her away without dying myself. Seeing as that isn’t an option, I have to sau I choose her. [/quote]

Nope, your wife wasn’t one of the choices. The choice was between the two children, the living 5-year-old little girl who puked on you and taught you to love, and the (…zygote? Let’s say embryo, since a zygote is a zygote for less than a second, and only ever contains ONE cell) embryo in your wife’s womb, the evidence of which is so minuscule that only a urine test can detect it.

And it seems you’ve already answered that question, since the embryo obviously doesn’t have a heartbeat.

So an embryo is not equivalent to a five year old girl, in your mind.

1110

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

…I can predict that anyone who says overpopulation is not a problem for the world is simply someone who is living where overpopulation is not a problem currently for them…

[/quote]

I’ve a hunch that most who’ve responded in this regard don’t think overpopulation is not a problem for the world; rather they think it’s not unsolvable.

That doesn’t mean they think the slums of Calcutta, or Jakarta, or Hong Kong, or Mexico City will end up looking like eastern Montana. [/quote]

What would would you say the solution is, other than the good old Four Horsemen?

1111

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And it seems you’ve already answered that question, since the embryo obviously doesn’t have a heartbeat.

So an embryo is not equivalent to a five year old girl, in your mind.[/quote]

It’s correct that I’d choose my child that has a heartbeat over the one that doesn’t if I was forced to make that choice.

However the hypothetical isn’t fair or emotion neutral enough to make the claim you do in the final sentence.

1112

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
People have been crying about overpopulation being the end of the world as we know it for… I don’t know, at least 400 something years now, right?

I’m not particularly worried about it. [/quote]

How many desperately poor countries have you visited?[/quote]

None.

Do people sucking dick to survive count as “desperately”?

[quote]What do they all seem to have in common, other than the smell?
[/quote]

Despair.

I’ve also seen a kid born with 4 total fingers pitch in a little league all-star game, and a rape victim become a wonderful, just wonderful, mother of 4.

I’m not about to give up on people or a person for being born poor.

[/quote]

Well, that is a tautology. A desperately poor country is desperate (i.e. it despairs) by definition.

No, the answer I was looking for was “crowded.”

The greater the population density of any given area, the greater the poverty will be, all else being equal. New York and Tokyo seem like obvious exceptions to this, until you consider how many acres of farmland are required to feed and clothe each New Yorker or Tokyoite. The surface of the earth is finite, and although Monsanto are doing the best that they can, you can only squeeze so much blood from a stone. Or edible vegetation from a planet. At some point, population growth (which is always exponential) is going to outpace technological advances, and not only will more people starve than currently do, but the slums of the world will increase in area, giving rise to more disease and crime.

If you were the mayor of New York, and it came to your attention that the pigeons of Central Park were so numerous that they were shitting all over everything, spreading disease, and generally making a nuisance of themselves, costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, what would you do?

Let us assume that enlarging Central Park is not an option, although the pigeons are already infesting the surrounding area of the city.

Let us also assume that you are an animal lover, and so the idea of killing the pigeons, or smashing their eggs, is horrifying to you.

Would you resolve to just coexist with the pigeons, and find a way to feed a pigeon population that gets bigger every year?

Or would you find a way to stabilise their population in some other way?

1113

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Or would you find a way to stabilise their population in some other way?
[/quote]

I can’t compare pigeons to people, I just can’t.

So, let’s try it this way:

How do you suppose we effectively deal with the overpopulation problem? Is there a way to do so without utterly destroying the freedom of the common person?

1114

Killing over a thousand perfectly innocent people every single day is NOT a big deal? I have zero problem with focusing on the greatest injustice in the history of the world. Eight billion souls have been lost since Roe v Wade and that number is the lowest number possible. We have zero clues as to the real number.

Sorry, my moral compass goes haywire when thinking about what you hope this world to be in the future. Just imagine what people would do if they were told and shown the Truth about abortion.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why cut and paste eight pages of points? Why not just post the link? That’s kind of indicative of an obsessive personality type. You know, the kind of person who gets fixated on one particular thing and it grows to take up every aspect of their lives out of all proportion and so on. Just some friendly advice; try to relax a bit and take some time to think about other things. You’re certainly not helping your cause with the obsessive fixation. After all, we don’t want people to think of prolifers as fruit loops do we?[/quote]

1115

Since you are all about the Truth, prove me wrong.

[quote]jnd wrote:
kneedragger:

Oh no you didn’t…

"25e. Abortion significantly raises the rate of breast cancer. "

Once again you are caught lying about the ABC link. You should know better by now that this is a bogus “fact” concocted by pseudo-scientific liars hellbent on scaring women.

As long as you keep lying, I will continue to point out that you are a liar.

jnd

[/quote]

1116

You might give up on me because finding this data that is over a decade old will take tremendous time. You have no choice, other than finding the data yourself. Privacy laws buried the information. But I will not forget ; )

1117

In school I was never involved in debate so this is strange territory for me.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:NO. You made the claim. YOU are supposed to support the claim you made with evidence. That is how these things work, and every scientist, philosopher, and analyst knows these things. If you want people to take your argument on the survival rate seriously, then YOU are the person that needs to support your claim and do so with unbiased, or at least methodologically sound, evidence. This is standard practice, and it goes for all fields.

You also did not provide “data”, e.g. hard numbers and methodology. You made a claim with a number–a very, very extraordinary and unsourced number. That is not data. This fact is also fundamentally basic to science, debate, philosophy and ratiinal analysis.[/quote]

I have had numerous sit down conversations with people. I talk with people over the full spectrum, from sharing my views one-hundred percent to the full opposite side, fully opposed to my stance. I answered his questions and if he feels I did not, he can ask me again ; )

1118

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Killing over a thousand perfectly innocent people every single day is NOT a big deal? I have zero problem with focusing on the greatest injustice in the history of the world. Eight billion souls have been lost since Roe v Wade and that number is the lowest number possible. We have zero clues as to the real number.

Sorry, my moral compass goes haywire when thinking about what you hope this world to be in the future. Just imagine what people would do if they were told and shown the Truth about abortion.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Why cut and paste eight pages of points? Why not just post the link? That’s kind of indicative of an obsessive personality type. You know, the kind of person who gets fixated on one particular thing and it grows to take up every aspect of their lives out of all proportion and so on. Just some friendly advice; try to relax a bit and take some time to think about other things. You’re certainly not helping your cause with the obsessive fixation. After all, we don’t want people to think of prolifers as fruit loops do we?[/quote]
[/quote]

That’s a really big number. Where do the souls go?

1119

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

However the hypothetical isn’t fair or emotion neutral enough to make the claim you do in the final sentence. [/quote]

I disagree – I think it means exactly what V said. But if the hypothetical is simply too tainted by the commendable bias of your being a loving family man, you can abstract it: You are making the same choice, but the people in question – the mother, 5-year-old, and embryo – are all strangers to you.

If you would still choose the death of the embryo over the death of the 5-year-old – as I’m close to certain you would – then you believe the latter’s life to be more valuable than the former’s. Perhaps, even, you believe the latter (and not the former) to be fully a person.

1120

. . . .

I have a QUESTION, Should laws define our morality OR should morality define our laws?

I responded above ^ but let me know if I need to clarity = ]