Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Nuclear

Abortion Debate

Recommended Posts

year population % rise pop. gain

1997 5,846,871,429 1.34 78,899,442

1998 5,925,770,871 1.31 78,001,123

1999 6,003,771,994 1.28 77,230,943

2000 6,081,002,937 1.25 76,753,814

2001 6,157,756,751 1.24 76,520,745

2002 6,234,277,496 1.22 76,271,568

2003 6,310,549,064 1.20 75,993,822

2004 6,386,542,886 1.18 75,638,540

2005 6,462,181,426 1.16 75,478,997

2006 6,537,660,423 1.15 75,561,947

http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm

I’m having trouble understanding the population is not growing.

‘Unborn’ hmmm what would the opposite of unborn be?

Regarding 'human' & 'rights' 18.

UNCLE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's world population. I'm talking about first-world population, which is dropping.

So, is it your position that the unborn is not human or does not have rights until born? Just want to get clarity on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over four million babies are born each year in the United States. The U.S. population is growing by about 2.5 million people each year. Of that, immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually.

The U.S. fertility rate is currently 2.0 births per woman, an increase from 1.8 in 1988.

The United States has one of the highest natural growth rates (0.7%) of any industrialized country in the world. For comparison, the United Kingdom's natural increase is one quarter the rate of the U.S. at 0.2%, while Germany's natural increase is 0. Using the Census Bureau's medium projections,

U.S. population will grow to 394 million by the year 2050.

Eight states have population growth rates over 2.0%, which means their population will double in less than 35 years.

I'm still having troubleand if you think third world population does not effect the first world your nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN aired the first part a report on just this subject tonight. They will air the second part tomorrow. “Population growth and the adverse ramifications”. What a coincidence. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Population growth isn't a problem right now.

about 10years after WWII people predicted germany would have 5 people living in it in the year 2000 because of the rate the pop. was declining at.

You can't predict population growth/decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you are correct, Derek, population predictions appear to be valid for the existing generation of child bearing age only. Beyond that, it's crystal ball time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article Whistler posted is fairly hilarious.

It proudly states that the American birth rate has risen to 2.0 children per woman, up from 1.8 (where it has been ever since abortion was legalised). That's 0.1 below what is required to maintain the population level, as opposed to 0.3 - basically, the first and second paragraphs of that excerpt contradict each other.

Population growth is not to blame for any of the world's problems anyway. Poverty, poor quality of life, pollution and so forth can be laid at the door of corrupt government, war, natural disaster, misuse of resources, lack of technology or education etc. Population increase has nothing to do with it, otherwise the standard of living in the West would have dropped with the increasing population in the first half of the 20th Century, rather than the radical increase in quality of life we saw in that period instead.

Furthermore, even if population growth was causing problems, killing a percentage of the population in order to solve or lessen them is an extremely barbaric and inhumane idea. Hitler put 275,000 handicapped people to death before he even started on the Jews in order to raise the quality of life for the German people, and legalised abortion in order to solve social problems is basically that very same idea.

That's not particularly surprising given who some of the pro-abort founders are. Consider Margaret Sanger, first president of Planned Parenthood and world's largest abortion promoter, who believed that abortion was an ideal way to reduce the population of "feeble-minded human weeds" such as "Negroes, Southern Europeans and Jews." She believed in creating a "master race" and "segregating and sterilizing" those who she deemed "genetically inferior."

It should be noted that Planned Parenthood has never publicly apologised for or disowned these remarks.

Abortion has solved none of the problems it promised to solve anyway. Teen pregnancy and teen births are skyrocketing and are still within a mere fraction of a percentile of their highest peak in history. Child abuse has failed to drop, and despite what the ghoulish Morgenthaler promised abortion has not made every child a wanted child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UN population projection

UN%20Population%20Projections.jpg

truth #1: the worlds population is definately growing, some would argu at an alarming rate

truth #2: any solice found in the low birth rates of certain 1st world nations is buried by the certainly that pressure from immigration will grow to overwhelm any breathing room birth rates could bring.

SirRiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugo you are so silly. Simple deduction should tell you (if your birth rate is greater then your death rate your population grows.) 2.0 or 0.2 it does not matter, (immigration withstanding). As for “Population growth is not to blame for any of the world's problems anyway.” This speaks for your grasp of the facts or perhaps just your spin. Please consider contributing, irritating or compounding. Watch CNN tonight if you really do think over population has nothing to do with world troubles.

This whole move into population is a byproduct of our original topic. The fact of the matter, in my humble opinion, is the woman has every right to choose to bring a child into this world that will force her into poverty, welfare and despair..

You did bring up a great topic however regarding Margaret Sanger. Very few people actually know that genocide was actually an U.S. theory that Hitler implemented. American genetics is an amazing story of the dark side of the U.S., Rockefellers and IBM among many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple deduction should tell you (if your birth rate is greater then your death rate your population grows.) 2.0 or 0.2 it does not matter, (immigration withstanding).

OK, if every 2 people are birthing, on average, 0.2 more people, that means your population is shrinking very fast.

If every 2 people are birthing 2 people, as it is today, that means that the population is shrinking since this does not account for infant mortality and adults who will not reproduce.

But let's assume that you're right. We know that overall the world population is increasing, and we'll make a great and unjustified leap of thought and assume that population growth actually makes the world's problems worse.

Is it then acceptable to kill large numbers of human beings in order to alleviate those problems?

Very few people actually know that genocide was actually an U.S. theory that Hitler implemented.

That's because it isn't. There were pogroms before America was even discovered. Do you have a source for this claptrap? Or do you think Thomas Malthus was American?

When you quote excerpts that are utterly self-contradictory and nonsensical and then write garbage like this, you can't expect to be taken seriously.

The fact of the matter, in my humble opinion, is the woman has every right to choose to bring a child into this world that will force her into poverty, welfare and despair..

She does. She can choose not to have sex. She can also wonder whether it's fair to kill an innocent human being because she doesn't like the consequences of her own actions.

In the case of rapes, these account for 1% of abortions. Furthermore, to abort the child of a rape just means that there were two victims of that crime instead of one - one who was raped, one who was murdered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignorance is bliss!

Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

In pursuit of their social agenda, the eugenics movement adopted two faces, a "positive" one, which concentrated on exhorting the genetically gifted to reproduce, and a "negative" one, which sought to prevent the defective from breeding.

http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/exhibits/...easures/aes.htm

Eugenics is a concept familiar to Americans in the context of Nazi Germany. "Eugenics" involves notions of racial purity, racial superiority, and the heritability of intelligence, virtue, or vice. Although Hitler is its most notorious proponent, eugenic thinking has held a prominent place in Western intellectual history since the 1860's, when Darwin's disciple, Francis Galton, began to put about the idea that the governing classes of England should consciously guide the development of the human genetic heritage.

http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/aepage.htm

The Nazis may have given eugenics its negative connotations, but the practice--and the "science" that supports it--is still disturbingly alive in America in anti-immigration initiatives, the quest for a "gay gene," and theories of collective intelligence.

http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/O/ordover_...r_american.html

and on and on and on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you on about?

First you say:

genocide was actually an U.S. theory that Hitler implemented

and then you start talking about eugenics, which is a very different concept to genocide, and start talking about the English origins of it?

Are you confused on the terminology, the concepts, or are you confused as to what point you're trying to make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever. The original point was that abortion as a cure for social ills smacks of genocide, ethnic cleansing, eugenics and all sorts of other extremely egregious concepts. The fact that abortion shares so many concepts with some of the darkest and most evil periods of human history should be a warning for you. This is borne out, as I said, by the fact that abortion's biggest proponent was a bona fide racist and white supremacist.

By the way:

eugenics: The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

genetics: (used with a sing. verb) The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.

(used with a pl. verb) The genetic constitution of an individual, group, or class.

Eugenics is not the "for runner" [sic] of genetics. You're pretty confused on these concepts. The definitions above should help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hogo, I see your lack of simple deduction expands beyond math.

Sense you can not help but misunderstand I will say for the third and last time a woman has the right to choose for herself. You do not have the right to choose for her. Everything else was side roads.

From here on you are playing with yourself. And I suggest you use that as birth control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a woman has the right to choose for herself. You do not have the right to choose for her.

What if the unborn child is female? Does that woman have the right to choose for herself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Hugo,

A valid point, but the unborn is not yet (or always, depending how you look at it) a woman.

I suppose the biggest line in the sand of 'abortion' vs murder is what constitutes a person. If a person is broken down into component parts, one will find a pharmacy and a compost heap, all in one. Potassium, oxygen, hydrogen, iodine, etc. I read somewhere that the actual value of the components of a human are about 4 dollars. Yet these components aren't a 'person'. A person is made up of common elements, but does not become a person until......what? Life experience? Memory? Decision making"? Conception?

At conception, those chemicals and elements will 'probably' evolve into a person. The debate seems to be, are you a person under federal law at conception? Not at the moment. Should they be? Perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

World Medical Association adoption of the Declaration of Geneva

"A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death."

World Medical Association adoption of the International Code of Medical Ethics

"I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein.

"A living person's designation to a species is determined not by the stage of development but by the sum total or its biological characteristics - actual and potential - which are genetically determined... If we say that [the fetus] is not human, e.g. a member of Homo Sapiens, we must say it is a member of another species. But this cannot be."

Roland M. Nardone, "The Nexus of Biology and the Abortion Issue"

To be a person, you need to be a member of Homo Sapiens. To argue that the unborn is not a person, you are arguing that it is not a member of Homo Sapiens, that it is not human. All humans are persons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The debate seems to be, are you a person under federal law at conception? Not at the moment.

I just wanted to come back to this. According to Canadian law as it currently stands, at conception you are entitled to own property, to be a plaintiff in a civil suit, or to inherit property. This was established in Giddings vs. Canadian Northern Railway, In Re Charlton Estate, Montreal Tramways vs. Leveille, Watt vs. Rama, and Duval et al. vs. Seguin et al. It has been upheld in courts of law even after the 1969 decision to legalise therapeutic abortion in Canada.

Basically, Canadian law since the 18th Century has upheld the right of the unborn to own property, to inherit property, and to be considered a person for the purposes of damages or injury. However, Canadian law does not recognise the right of the unborn to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Hugo,

A valid point, but the unborn is not yet (or always, depending how you look at it) a woman.

I suppose the biggest line in the sand of 'abortion' vs murder is what constitutes a person. If a person is broken down into component parts, one will find a pharmacy and a compost heap, all in one. Potassium, oxygen, hydrogen, iodine, etc. I read somewhere that the actual value of the components of a human are about 4 dollars. Yet these components aren't a 'person'. A person is made up of common elements, but does not become a person until......what? Life experience? Memory? Decision making"? Conception?

At conception, those chemicals and elements will 'probably' evolve into a person. The debate seems to be, are you a person under federal law at conception? Not at the moment. Should they be? Perhaps.

My God man.

The thought ever occur to you that the life stamped out might have grown up to cure cancer or become the long awaited one? or whatever. Never know, you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My God man.

The thought ever occur to you that the life stamped out might have grown up to cure cancer or become the long awaited one? or whatever. Never know, you know?

Or Hilter, Jeffry Dahlmer, Jac Chirac, John Cretien or some smelly guy on a donkey in the mountains with a three month old grainy cassette tape of OBL. What kind of an argument is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My God man.

The thought ever occur to you that the life stamped out might have grown up to cure cancer or become the long awaited one? or whatever. Never know, you know?

Or Hilter, Jeffry Dahlmer, Jac Chirac, John Cretien or some smelly guy on a donkey in the mountains with a three month old grainy cassette tape of OBL. What kind of an argument is that?

A rash and sentimental one.

My mind is not as sharp as yours this I am sure of so when at lost for intelligent replys I simply rush to agree.

Damn ,man that was dark.Smelly guy, hitler and all.

It also has my mind trying to get around something that should have been obvious to me.Bad with the good.

Never the less, abortion for the sake of abortion is first cowardly and mruderous.

Life has been proven, at least well enough for me, to start at inseption. What is the problem, it is life, kill it and you murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Congress just passed a bill to ban partial birth abortion, which is a barbaric procedure involving a full term 3rd trimester baby.

I must admit I had no idea that this type of late term abortion actually ever took place in the USA and Canada. It was pretty disturbing to read the details of the procedure.

Bush says he will sign the bill into law. But pro-choice foes said they will challenge it in court because the ban would limit women's rights to privacy.

It will be interesting to see the final outcome of the court case.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ngress_abortion

Bush to Sign Partial Birth Abortion Bill

By Jim Abrams, Associated Press, October 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must admit I had no idea that this type of late term abortion actually ever took place in the USA and Canada. It was pretty disturbing to read the details of the procedure.

what does it matter how the fetus is destroyed?

because its exiting the birth canal does that make it any more or less moral?

in "normal" abortion the fetus is torn to shreds inside the womb before being removed. doesnt matter how they do it, its either right or wrong. everything else is unrelated.

SirRiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir Riff,

The reason partial birth abortion is more barbaric in the minds of many people after they find out about the procedure is not only the fact that a baby's brains are sucked out of his/her head in the course of the procedure, but also because the baby is no longer a "fetus" or an embryo that society can choose to dismiss. Rather the aborted baby has a face, if you will, and could live independently from the birth mother.

You'll note that even die-hard Democrats voted for the ban on partial birth abortion.

Perhaps the publicity that comes with the Supreme Court case over the ban on partial birth abortion in the USA will serve to educate MP's and voters in Canada, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...