41% of Pregnancies End in Abortion in NYC

madanthony said:
Overpopulation? Get out of the seventies.
Click to expand...
The population explosion that created the demographic problems you warn about was quite real, and has not peaked yet.

We have boomed. The piper will now be paid. And it will not be paid in some sort of great benefits to be had by creating another huge mass of cheap labor for the global profits of industrialists - that only works once, while there's still trees to cut and stuff to dig up by hand. (You think China has problems from its coming demographic issues? Imagine if it had another half a billion cheap labor bodies to feed, clothe, and house, as they broke down, instead - in a modernizing economy. And another third of its work force pregnant, with all that implies.)

Raising the young and easing the old have always been the major expenses of modern civilization. That's not a disaster, it's a distribution problem.
 
200,000

And you know this for a fact? we loose 200,000 people every year do to AIDS.
http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1428820/ so we have a "couple of millions" we will done pretty soon... And maybe that is a good thing... Don't forget other sickness ... Other Sickness are still killing people also... plus natural disasters.


Syzygys said:
Such as?

By the way for humankind to survive only needs a couple of million people, not billions...
Click to expand...
 
greenboy said:
And you know this for a fact?
Click to expand...

Yeap. What do you think, how many people lived 20K years ago? Probably a few millions and still population grew to 7 billion without problem. And there was starvation and all kind of diseases.

So worrying about human survival today is silly.


we loose 200,000 people every year do to AIDS.
Click to expand...

Yes so? It is made up in less than 2 days. 2 days!!! That's what it takes to replace those dead.

Not to mention if we have less people less will die of AIDS.

Not to hurt your feelings but your factual knowledge and debating ability are lacking....
 
By madanthony
Overpopulation? Get out of the seventies.

Yeah after all we only have like 1.5 billion MORE people today than in the 70s.... :)

When these Republicans finally start to make sense????
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

The main problem is today we are real interconnected and if we have a sickness spreading as an epidermic could destroy more population than centuries ago, so the protection provided by isolation do not exist anymore, look at aids, spread like a wild fire soon as it was discovered and diagnose, but we have science to protect us, and a vaccine is going to happen soon. Well it did not happen yet, what about EBOLA if this sucker spread in a major city we have no time for getting out of town, ebola spread fast and kill fast. And no only human read the following.

http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical/veterinary/ebola
 
greenboy said:
The main problem is today we are real interconnected and if we have a sickness spreading as an epidermic could destroy more population than centuries ago,
Click to expand...

That was EXACTLY my point. More people equals more suffering.

Your solution seems to be that let's overpopulate even more, so if/when the epidemic strikes, we have enough extra people to survive. You might want to look up the history of epidemics, they usually have a natural course. After a while they kill so many people, that there aren't enough left to spread the disease further and the epidemic goes away, or the population develops resistance to it.

Nature has a way of controlling life.... Now if we have less people when it starts (mind you that less still means plenty) that just means less people will die....

So again, abortion prevents death and further suffering...
 
So

In the 60 pro-choice people were convincing people about overpopulation in 2000 we were going to starve to death, reality, We got a green revolution, we Industrialized farming and we produce more food like never before, we also are producing the fattest people in History, not only in USA all around the world. This do not excused the 50 million babies killed in USA only since we legalized abortion. 50 million, not even Hilter killed so many people in Concentrations Camps. WOW

Syzygys said:
That was EXACTLY my point. More people equals more suffering.
Your logic is let's kill them before they are born so they won't suffer later on in life. Are you from anotheBut r planet? So killing a baby now will avoid possible suffering in the future?
In the 60 Pro choice people were using the "logic" to kill babies so overpopulation in the 2000 wont starve people, but we had a Green Revolution, our crops are better and producing more now, we produce more food like never before, and we are becoming the FATTEST people in History. Well thanks God they Killed 50 millions of babies in USA only so they are not suffering overeating, playing computer games and going to fat farm. WOW thanks God we did it... Your logic can not be applied to human.

Your solution seems to be that let's overpopulate even more, so if/when the epidemic strikes, we have enough extra people to survive. You might want to look up the history of epidemics, they usually have a natural course. After a while they kill so many people, that there aren't enough left to spread the disease further and the epidemic goes away, or the population develops resistance to it.

Nature has a way of controlling life.... Now if we have less people when it starts (mind you that less still means plenty) that just means less people will die....

So again, abortion prevents death and further suffering...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nice preaching, although NONE of your arguments are relevant or I give a shit about, so you might as well give up preaching...
 
greenboy said:
In the 60 pro-choice people were convincing people about overpopulation in 2000 we were going to starve to death, reality, We got a green revolution, we Industrialized farming and we produce more food like never before, we also are producing the fattest people in History, not only in USA all around the world. This do not excused the 50 million babies killed in USA only since we legalized abortion. 50 million, not even Hilter killed so many people in Concentrations Camps. WOW
Click to expand...

But Greenboy women do not opt for abortion because of over-population, all abortions are really personal individual decisions. I think its fine that you do not believe abortions to be an asset in society but what I want to know is this:

Do you believe a woman has the right to an abortion, meaning do you believe it should remain legal? Or are you advocating forcing women to have children they don't want. Its all nice and well to say women should just say no and men should just say no but we know that many people don't and many people don't often. Since we are all interconnected are you willing to carry the financial burden to care for these unwanted children that will be in society or would you rather that the West resemble Bangladesh?
 
greenboy said:
I We got a green revolution, we Industrialized farming and we produce more food like never before, we also are producing the fattest people in History, not only in USA all around the world.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Ethiopians. I can tell you haven't been outside of the West to see all those 'fat' massess:rolleyes:
 
WEll

NO a woman has not the right to kill another human being, I have not the right to kill my mother because she has ALZ. IS a SAD day just because my mother doesnt wnat me is enough to kill me. A very Sad day indeed..Once the woman got pregnant she has not the right to destroy that child. She has the right to avoid getting pregnant Yes she does. But once she got pregnant that baby is a human being protected by law. And adoption is always an option. ALways Adoption is an option...

WELL
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
But Greenboy women do not opt for abortion because of over-population, all abortions are really personal individual decisions. I think its fine that you do not believe abortions to be an asset in society but what I want to know is this:

Do you believe a woman has the right to an abortion, meaning do you believe it should remain legal? Or are you advocating forcing women to have children they don't want. Its all nice and well to say women should just say no and men should just say no but we know that many people don't and many people don't often. Since we are all interconnected are you willing to carry the financial burden to care for these unwanted children that will be in society or would you rather that the West resemble Bangladesh?
Click to expand...
 
HEre is another ONE SCOTTY!

They are valid if they are not valid for you I could give a Damn.... :) I am not preaching I am trying for you guys to realize You guys have to develop a free thinking and not let other people to tailor your thoughts. By opinion Makers...
Syzygys said:
Nice preaching, although NONE of your arguments are relevant or I give a shit about, so you might as well give up preaching...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
greenboy said:
NO a woman has not the right to kill another human being, I have not the right to kill my mother because she has ALZ. IS a SAD day just because my mother doesnt wnat me is enough to kill me. A very Sad day indeed..Once the woman got pregnant she has not the right to destroy that child. She has the right to avoid getting pregnant Yes she does. But once she got pregnant that baby is a human being protected by law. And adoption is always an option. ALways Adoption is an option...

WELL
Click to expand...

Well a fetus is completely dependent on its host the mother and not a viable human being that can exist in its own right which is why it dies when not attached to the host and as such has no rights under the law and isn't protected under the law. This is why you cannot prosecute a woman for assault if she smokes, drinks and does drugs when she's pregnant. That being said the needs of the woman, who is a living human being, outweighs that of the unborn which is why when a doctor has to choose between the live of a mother and that of the unborn in a medical emergency he chooses that of the mother. Adoption is always an option if the woman wants to be pregnant to begin with, if a woman doesn't want to carry to term then abortion isn't an option.

You didn't answer this question: Since we are all interconnected are you willing to carry the financial burden to care for these unwanted children that will be in society or would you rather that the West resemble Bangladesh?
 
John99 said:
No newborn babies cannot survive independently either. You should also check the laws about murdering pregnant women.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/298166
Click to expand...

Don't be so daft John that answer only pertains if someone has murdered the woman as its assumed her INTENT is to carry the unborn to term. Now show your intellectual muster and go and show where a woman has been charged with assault for doing things to her body that are harmful to an unborn child. If you were smart and took the time you could have brought up the case in Frankfort, Georgia where there are attempts to legalize this BUT it still could only apply to "protecting lives that are already beyond those choices" meaning at the point where the child cannot be aborted. But the legal ruling was this:

'Women CAN NOT be criminally charged for abusing alcohol or drugs during pregnancy, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case that has generated national attention.
In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled that the state’s Maternal Health Act of 1992 expressly precludes women from being charged with crimes if they ingest drugs or alcohol during pregnancy.'

http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/06/17/pregnant-women-can-not-be-charged-for-taking-drugs/

A newborn baby can survive with the help of another, you would be hard pressed to say the same of a 8 week fetus.

Use some thought before you enter these discussions.
 
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
Don't be so daft John that answer only pertains if someone has murdered the woman as its assumed her INTENT is to carry the unborn to term.
Click to expand...

Lucy, the person is being charged with murdering two people. The charge is not dependent on the mothers intentions.

This is what you said:

Well a fetus is completely dependent on its host the mother and not a viable human being that can exist in its own right which is why it dies when not attached to the host and as such has no rights under the law and isn't protected under the law.

Now show your intellectual muster and go and show where a woman has been charged with assault for doing things to her body that are harmful to an unborn child.
Click to expand...

Can you show where a person has been charged for doing something harmful to themselves? There are options though. People can be put into protective custody or some form of court order.
 
'Women CAN NOT be criminally charged for abusing alcohol or drugs during pregnancy, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case that has generated national attention.
In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled that the state’s Maternal Health Act of 1992 expressly precludes women from being charged with crimes if they ingest drugs or alcohol during pregnancy.'
Click to expand...

Lucy, PEOPLE cannot be charged for ingesting drugs or alcohol themselves.

When they are pregnant it is a little different though.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/6/gr030603.html
 
John99 said:
Lucy, the person is being charged with murdering two people. The charge is not dependent on the mothers intentions.

This is what you said:

Well a fetus is completely dependent on its host the mother and not a viable human being that can exist in its own right which is why it dies when not attached to the host and as such has no rights under the law and isn't protected under the law.



Can you show where a person has been charged for doing something harmful to themselves? There are options though. People can be put into protective custody or some form of court order.
Click to expand...

How would you know John you went to 'answerbag' to come up with an example that has little to do with the point being made but just to enlighten you double murder is a multiplier which amounts to killing someone with special circumstances which is in this case her pregnancy, it doesn't legally arrive at killing two individual people which is why they person who commits the murder is not charged with two separate counts of murder but with the term 'double murder', that being the case my statement is still true. If it were not so they wouldn't need this special legal qualifier they would simply charge the perpetrator with two counts.

Can you show me where its been held in court that a pregnant woman who attempts suicide is charged with attempted murder?

Really:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top