Abortion only for rape, insest, and life of the mother.

[Father Heathen]

Treat as any other homicide.

Loathsome.

 

[Father Heathen]

All those nice adjectives say nothing about the morality of the abortion. Until those methods no longer involve the cessation of the life they are immoral.

The obvious difference between a fetus and an actual person is that a fetus lacks the qualities (sapience, sentience, the capacity for emotion, the ability to reason, etc.) that define personhood. The true immorality lies with denying women sovereignty over their own bodies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The right tends to panic about things like immigration and the declining birth rate of white people around the world. Many women, given the choice, prefer not to have children, or to have only one or two, so reproductive choice is a serious threat if you're paranoid about the world getting less white.

Ironically, since - at least on a societal level - the average number of children per family hs a very strong negative correlation with wealth, so if the social darwinists really want to reduce the non-white birth rate, the best way to do it is probably to make non-white people as rich as possible.

 

[Indira]

The right tends to panic about things like immigration and the declining birth rate of white people around the world. Many women, given the choice, prefer not to have children, or to have only one or two, so reproductive choice is a serious threat if you're paranoid about the world getting less white.

For the economy to grow, the population has to grow. That means either immigration or women having lots of babies. Pick one.

Could you expound on your reasoning that population growth promotes growth in the economy?

 

[Father Heathen]

Storm´s situation sounds very tough, I find it sad that in her difficult state she found someone else to make a victim.

I found it absolutely repulsive that you would have victims of rape suffer even further just because you want to pretend that fetuses are people.

 

[Alceste]

Could you expound on your reasoning that population growth promotes growth in the economy?

Sure. Exponential growth is the basis for all our measures of economic health. If the GDP is to grow by 3-4 % per year, that means we need 3-4% more jobs every year, and 3-4% more people to fill them. That paints a pretty simplistic picture, leaving out the phenomenon of financialization and unemployment rates, but that is the general idea.

 

[Indira]

Sure. Exponential growth is the basis for all our measures of economic health. If the GDP is to grow by 3-4 % per year, that means we need 3-4% more jobs every year, and 3-4% more people to fill them. That paints a pretty simplistic picture, leaving out the phenomenon of financialization and unemployment rates, but that is the general idea.

I don`t see how you get population growth as `promoting` economical growth as that has nothing to do with creating jobs, and the notion there is a shortage of job seekers a is a bit humorous. But thanks for the response.

 

[Alceste]

I don`t see how you get population growth as `promoting` economical growth as that has nothing to do with creating jobs, and the notion there is a shortage of job seekers a is a bit humorous. But thanks for the response.

I don't think you've understood the concept of exponential growth, frankly. First, the claim was not that population growth causes new jobs to appear (although it does, by virtue of more people purchasing food, shelter, education, health care, and other goods and services). The point was that IF we measure economic health in part by the number of new jobs created every year, we must have people to fill those jobs.

Considering that unemployment is around 7 percent in a bad year, and growth is about 3.5% in a good year, it would only take two years to employ everyone who wanted to work, if every unemployed person was ready and willing to take any available job, and located where the jobs were (a very unrealistic condition). After two years, then what? No more growth, because everyone is employed. No new jobs can be filled, and the economy stops growing.

 

[Alceste]

Ironically, since - at least on a societal level - the average number of children per family hs a very strong negative correlation with wealth, so if the social darwinists really want to reduce the non-white birth rate, the best way to do it is probably to make non-white people as rich as possible.

Hell, I'll go for that.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It is a sensitive issue and contrary to what seems to be popular thought, I do care about my words, how they may or may not be construed and any effect they may have; as well, I am empathetic of the situation faced by women who have been victimized and face the prospect of bearing a child of the offender.

How would the pro-life position respond if a woman....or in this case a 13 year old girl.....who feels doubly violated for gestating a fetus against her will?

It isn't a dismissive "so what". But in a situation of morality there is a point where you have to say that wants must submit to what is right.

Further you don't have an inviolable right to do with your body what you want anyways, at least as the government currently sees it. Telling someone that they can't do drugs is no less a violation of the "right to the body" as anti-abortion laws.

I have a right to remove something from my body if it threatens my health. Pregnancy provides a risk to the mother carrying the fetus, and specifically at a young age. All pregnancies - ALL pregnancies - change the hormonal, chemical, and physical make-up of the woman for the rest of her life.....it is right to submit to what SHE wants changed in her body.

The taking drugs argument? Whether or not the drug was administered to her without her consent, she should have a right to decide if she wants to purge the chemical from her body or not.

Perhaps I can ask you to refrain from doing exactly what you are complaining about and we can forestall any more "demonic caricatures" of those being Pro-life as being unempathetic ******** who don't care about women and only think of them as incubators.

Well, when push comes to shove, what is more important? The viability of a blastocyst or embryo? A living breathing woman's health? Calling a blastocyst a child - or, "life" - is an argument to emotion.

I think you're being unfair to me Storm, that I would make that argument at all; that you should deserve punishment for being beaten to miscarriage by your rapist.

Yet, would you have supported her getting an abortion at 13 because she would be gestating a fetus that she not only did not want, but could irreparably harm her at her age? Or would you have shamed her into carrying the fetus to term at her risk?

 

[Indira]

I don't think you've understood the concept of exponential growth, frankly. First, the claim was not that population growth causes new jobs to appear (although it does, by virtue of more people purchasing food, shelter, education, health care, and other goods and services). The point was that IF we measure economic health in part by the number of new jobs created every year, we must have people to fill those jobs.

Considering that unemployment is around 7 percent in a bad year, and growth is about 3.5% in a good year, it would only take two years to employ everyone who wanted to work, if every unemployed person was ready and willing to take any available job, and located where the jobs were (a very unrealistic condition). After two years, then what? No more growth, because everyone is employed. No new jobs can be filled, and the economy stops growing.

I do understand exponential growth, lol..but you`re scenarios are not consistent with the present reality in America, maybe you`re in another realm.

 

[Alceste]

I do understand exponential growth, lol..but you`re scenarios are not consistent with the present reality in America, maybe you`re in another realm.

Every country in the world is using an exponential growth economic model, bar none. And no, I don't live in the US.

Perhaps you can't see the forest for the trees?

Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates - Forbes

"When I first became prime minister in 1959, more than 62,000 babies were born that year—and Singapore’s population was half that of today’s. Low fertility and an aging population are two of our greatest concerns. In the future we will have to depend on immigrants to make up our numbers, for without them Singapore will face the prospect of a shrinking workforce and a stagnant economy. Fewer young *people means fewer new cars, stereos, computers, iPhones, iPads and clothes will be sold, not to mention that there will be fewer customers to partake in fine dining—and all the ancillary businesses."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Every country in the world is using an exponential growth economic model, bar none. And no, I don't live in the US.

Perhaps you can't see the forest for the trees?

Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates - Forbes

"When I first became prime minister in 1959, more than 62,000 babies were born that year—and Singapore’s population was half that of today’s. Low fertility and an aging population are two of our greatest concerns. In the future we will have to depend on immigrants to make up our numbers, for without them Singapore will face the prospect of a shrinking workforce and a stagnant economy. Fewer young *people means fewer new cars, stereos, computers, iPhones, iPads and clothes will be sold, not to mention that there will be fewer customers to partake in fine dining—and all the ancillary businesses."

An increasing population is (kinda) necessary for economic growth over the long term, but it doesn't create economic growth by itself.

If you double a person's wealth, it doesn't necessarily mean he'll buy twice as many cars, but if you have a society where nobody can afford cars anyway, doubling the population size doesn't sell any more cars.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm not seeing how overpopulating the earth is an economic necessity.

 

[Alceste]

An increasing population is (kinda) necessary for economic growth over the long term, but it doesn't create economic growth by itself.

If you double a person's wealth, it doesn't necessarily mean he'll buy twice as many cars, but if you have a society where nobody can afford cars anyway, doubling the population size doesn't sell any more cars.

I never claimed population growth CAUSES economic growth (although it does, to a certain extent, I'm talking about the growth model itself, not this or that specific detail). I claimed that you can not maintain exponential economic growth without corresponding exponential population growth. So, as the PM of Singapore mentions, a country's economy depends on either higher birth rates or immigration in order not to stagnate.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not seeing how overpopulating the earth is an economic necessity.

As long as we are using an exponential growth-based economic model, it is a necessity that the population continue to grow. We are currently witnessing the death of the growth-based economic model, and just look at the panic in the halls of the political and economic elite! Population projections predict that global human population growth will peak in about 30 years (population booms follow mathematically predictable curves). Sometime between now and then we will need to adapt our society to a sustainability model, or even a deflationary model.

 

[PRV357]

The answer, of course, is that pro-lifers feel that the only women who deserve to be punished by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver a baby are the ones who consented to having sex in the first place.

Can it be made any clearer that this matter is all about pro-lifers' pathological hatred of sexually active females?

-Nato

:sorry1: for anyone being offended by my perspective... but your points seem a lot like pathological hatred for an unborn baby, by an unplanned & unwanted pregnancy

but (to me) it's crystal clear that this matter is all about sexually active females & males... being responsible enough to use safe sex preventative measures :help: to avoid the unwanted pregnancies in the first place

 

[Alceste]

:sorry1: for anyone being offended by my perspective... but your points seem a lot like pathological hatred for an unborn baby, by an unplanned & unwanted pregnancy

but (to me) it's crystal clear that this matter is all about sexually active females & males... being responsible enough to use safe sex preventative measures :help: to avoid the unwanted pregnancies in the first place

So in your opinion, as long as you can convince 100% of rapists and pederasts to use safe sex preventative measures, properly, every time, we can go ahead and make abortion illegal? Good luck with that!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

:sorry1: for anyone being offended by my perspective... but your points seem a lot like pathological hatred for an unborn baby, by an unplanned & unwanted pregnancy

but (to me) it's crystal clear that this matter is all about sexually active females & males... being responsible enough to use safe sex preventative measures :help: to avoid the unwanted pregnancies in the first place

A friend of mine acted entirely responsibly: she got married, she and her husband decided to have a child, and she got pregnant. It was at that point that her husband decided to up and leave. While she decided to continue the pregnancy, this isn't something I would have forced on her.

And I don't think her circumstances were a result of irresponsibility on her part.

 

[Storm]

:sorry1: for anyone being offended by my perspective... but your points seem a lot like pathological hatred for an unborn baby, by an unplanned & unwanted pregnancy

If he were arguing that all pregnancies should be aborted regardless of the mother's wishes, you'd have a point. Of course, neither he nor any other pro-choicers are advocating anything so inane.