Abortion

Write4U said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hope you won’t be so flip towards a sorrowful woman who has a miscarriage during the early stages of pregnancy.

To that woman, she was carrying life. So I think there isn’t a one size fits all way of viewing this topic.
 
iceaura said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow. That's crazy. But, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. When you politicize a woman's uterus, anything is possible.
 
wegs said:
I hope you won’t be so flip towards a sorrowful woman who has a miscarriage during the early stages of pregnancy.

To that woman, she was carrying life. So I think there isn’t a one size fits all way of viewing this topic.
Click to expand...
I understand, but my post was strictly from the perspective that a woman's rights are being violated by a bunch of guys.
But being in total agreement with you on a woman's emotional investment in pregnancy, the argument shifts that in view of the maternal instincts, a woman must have a very good reason in order to feel a necessity for having an abortion.

I am sure no woman wants to abort, but sometimes circumstances demand such action. That circumstance can only be evaluated by the women herself.
 
Michael 345 said:
Don't give census department ideas :)

:)
Click to expand...
So, at what age does a fetus become a citizen? This may be very pertinent to the law that a person born in the US is a US citizen.
What about an unborn "person"? Automatic citizenship? What about conception in the US? Automatic citizenship?
 
billvon said:
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."
Click to expand...
Outlawing abortion does not increase the population growth? The rest of the "critical importance" is just blowing in the wind.
Any long range plans for population control will involve less births or more deaths, by any means. It's an inescapable dilemma.
 
Write4U said:
I understand, but my post was strictly from the perspective that a woman's rights are being violated by a bunch of guys.
But being in total agreement with you on a woman's emotional investment in pregnancy, the argument shifts that in view of the maternal instincts, a woman must have a very good reason in order to feel a necessity for having an abortion.

I am sure no woman wants to abort, but sometimes circumstances demand such action. That circumstance can only be evaluated by the women herself.
Click to expand...

So much this.

You hit the nail on the head. I have a few friends who have had abortions, and it was a very difficult decision. I don't like how some politicians infer that it's a hasty decision that a woman makes, or worse, that it's malicious. It's anything but. As a woman, it's really disheartening that in our modern moral society, we still have male politicians deciding what is best for us.
 
Write4U said:
So, at what age does a fetus become a citizen? This may be very pertinent to the law that a person born in the US is a US citizen.
What about an unborn "person"? Automatic citizenship? What about conception in the US? Automatic citizenship?
Click to expand...

Here is something from my thought bubble collection

In the womb

Full human rights

"Honey I am pregnant" (6 weeks)

Next day "We are gifting our house to our fetus "(tax dodge reasons)

Later miscarriage, no will

House taken for unpaid various taxes and assorted bills (power and water)

Family had been paying rent to fetus bank account,w had not been declared as income

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Here is something from my thought bubble collection

In the womb

Full human rights

"Honey I am pregnant" (6 weeks)

Next day "We are gifting our house to our fetus "(tax dodge reasons)

Later miscarriage, no will

House taken for unpaid various taxes and assorted bills (power and water)
Click to expand...
Not much different to "we are gifting our house to our one month old" - and then having the child die. (Other than better odds with the 1 month old)
 
sculptor said:
I used to suggest to my sons that they call their mother on their birthdays and thank her for not having the abortion.
Click to expand...

What prompted you to say that to you'r sons -- are they for a womans right to choose.???
 
Last edited:
cluelusshusbund said:
What prompted you to say that to your sons -- are they for a woman's right to choose.???
Click to expand...
as/re choose:
I would assume , YES (this ain't a topic which we discuss)
One is a rabid yellow dog democrat, and claims that he does not want children.
The other is married to a native american from Ecuador, has 2 daughters, and has built a house in the oriente of Ecuador. He works here as a science teacher, and summers in Ecuador.
...........
as/re what prompted me to say that:
now, we're getting into psychology
probably-------1/2 in jest?
(I'm conflicted on the subject)
 
The ignorance of the exponential function does not lie with scientists. It lies with the politicians.
Politicians speak of growth factors of 3 or 4 percent rates and if the growth rate falls below that we are doing
something wrong. This is the most misguided and ignorant perspective possible.
There are more jobs than people out of work, something the American economy has never experienced before. There are 6.7 million job openings and just 6.4 million available workers to fill them, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Click to expand...
How nice, we can increase our population to fill those available job openings. More dangerous words were never spoken.

Example; "a 3 % percent growth rate in jobs to acommodate a 3% percent growth in population" sounds innocent, benign even, but the consequences in the secondary effects of such growth rates, would be disasterous.

A 3% percent growth rate of anything, including all systems which have only a remote relationship with anything that grows at a rate of 3 % would mean that every 23 years everything would double in size.

Every 23 years we would need to double bathroom facilities, sewer treatment plants, energy consumption, food consumption requiring doubling in food production, and so forth, a true domino effect which could collapse the earth's ability to sustain that much onslaught on its flexible but delicate balance under the sudden weight placed on its natural resources.
All an inevitable result of just 3% percent growth rate in population (and everything else that comes with it)

Now, consider the implications of this statement
Fortunately, there are several steps we can take to address population growth. Improving women’s access to basic rights (health care, education, and economic opportunity) and voluntary family planning are ways to slow population growth through empowerment, not coercion. These efforts, in conjunction with strong commitments to reduce unsustainable practices, have the potential to improve the lives of millions of people and lessen our collective impact on the planet.
Click to expand...
This is a dangerous statement, because it is only partly true. It completely ignores the secondary impact on the environment when its total population increases at a rate of just 3%

Fortunately we are sitting at 1.07 % increase in birth rate which delays all this into a later future, but then it must stop. The total effects that mankind has on the earth's limited environment will inevitably be exponentially felt and mathematically corrected by nature itself.
Natural selection often involves some kind of natural disaster on a global scale.
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
as/re choose:
I would assume , YES (this ain't a topic which we discuss)
Click to expand...

So what was ther reply when you suggested that they thank ther mother for not having the abortion.???

Do they know you'r position on a womans right to choose.???
 
Write4U said:
The ignorance of the exponential function does not lie with scientists. It lies with the politicians.
Politicians speak of growth factors of 3 or 4 percent rates and if the growth rate falls below that we are doing
something wrong. This is the most misguided and ignorant perspective possible.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately they are correct. Our current economic and financial systems rely on constant growth for stability. Stop growing and our economy collapses.
 
billvon said:
Unfortunately they are correct. Our current economic and financial systems rely on constant growth for stability. Stop growing and our economy collapses.
Click to expand...

Or, so, at least believes the federal reserve bank.
I wonder:
Are they correct?
Are they playing the game with a different agenda than I would have?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top