Planned Parenthood’s infamous “Jaffe Memo” on population control
Abby Johnson writes in a post on her blog today:
When I worked at Planned Parenthood, there was something that we were not allowed to talk about. If we didn’t talk about it, then maybe no one else would either. It was called the Jaffe Memo. In 1969, Planned Parenthood was asked by the government to produce some ideas to help with overpopulation. They did just that. What is in the memo as a “solution” to overpopulation is astonishing. And, I’m sorry to say, it looks like the Jaffe Memo is starting to show its face in our culture….
Read the chilling and prophetic 42-yr-old memo by Planned Parenthood exec Frederick Jaffe here or click on the view below to enlarge…
Abby continues:
Planned Parenthood is… pushing for no restrictions on birth control and abortion. And guess who is right alongside them leading the charge? Our Commander in Chief, Barack Obama.
Don’t be naïve. This memo is still Planned Parenthood’s ultimate desire. Abortion and contraceptives on demand… that is their goal. They will do anything to make it happen… including coercion, breaking the law, underhanded deals, and dirty politics.
It is time to fight back. I do not want to live in a communist country. That, of course, would be no problem for Planned Parenthood… they would end up on top in a communist regime. Just think of what could happen in the next 50 years if pro-lifers don’t stand up against this organization! FORCED abortion… it could happen. LIMITS ON CHILDREN… another possibility. Spread this message to other people who value life. Show people what Planned Parenthood is really about. Don’t be silent! Get the word out. Go pray at a clinic. Reach out to abortion clinic workers. Only vote for candidates that clearly state they will remove funding from Planned Parenthood. This memo is real… and it is really happening in our country. This is not just a fight we have on our hands… it is a war. Let’s put on our armor. Truth still matters.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
yep its next to come. ever notice that people who want population control are still taking up space in the population?
Disgusting! :@
“encourage increased homosexuality” bwa ha ha ha ha ha.
Propaganda is what this article is. That memo was a very poor brainstorming venture in how to encourage moderation of families. But this post about it, pure propaganda.
The people that can’t understand this Jaffe memo are the same ones that can’t seem to see the direct link between Margret Sanger’s eugenics ideas and Planned Parenthood’s ulterior motive (having clinics in minority neighborhoods).
@Duck: Even supposing you’re right and the memo was only brainstorming, the fact that “compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies” and methods to deliberately induce chronic depression are at all listed as methods to be seriously explored is outrageous. Not surprising, though. Unfortunately. I mean, we should have been able to hope that people who supposedly respect choice wouldn’t go around trying to induce major depression in women who have the audacity to choose life, but once again, Planned Parenthood goes the extra mile to prove just how evil they really are.
Alice,
Anything that says “encourage increased homosexuality” especially from a time period that didn’t understand it, and it was still listed as a mental illness, gets no legitimate thought from me. Was it serious then? Yeah, I’m sure it was. So was the pope when he told Gallileo that the world was not round. (Not meant as a slam on religion there, just a famous example I could think of). The reason why I’m sure if Abby is correct that it’s not talked about, is because of how ridiculous that memo is. Would some of those methods work for “controlling” population? Yeah, you bet. Does that mean that any sane person would implement all those ideas? No. The reality though, is that the human population is expanding beyond our niche limits. And with all biological niches and populations, surpassing the limit will mean that massive population loss will happen in order to fall back into balance. That’s nature. We may be the most intelligent species on the planet, but we can’t outwit nature. That being said, we should follow good ol’ Ben Franklin’s advice… Everything in Moderation. Children, drinking, playing, working, etc. Everything in moderation.
Jill,
This is vaguely reminiscent of Frank Schaeffer’s book, “A Modest Proposal”. The great irony is that unless the truth about what humanity is really here for gets out, all of these real “modest proposals” will be enacted…there is no reason to stop them.
Duck, a lot of the points in there are actually happening right now. While i’m not one to hate homosexuals, i disagree with what they are doing, and it is often medically unhealthy. Homosexuals shouldn’t get preferential treatments, like a “homo neighbourhood” in the city.
As for the birth control in water suggestion, it is simply disgusting.
Alex, yes some of them are occuring, like condoms being available without having to see a doctor. Or like encouraging women to work if they choose instead of waiting for a guy to impregnate them. Homosexuals don’t get a homo neighborhood in the city. They like any population group, whites, blacks, ethnic immigrants, etc tend to want to live together, and so you end up with communities in cities. So, you’re misinformed about that part. Birth control in the water is pretty gross, although, if that were happening, women would have much better periods.
Clarification: i don’t hate homosexuals. Also, i hate all types of bullying, including but not limited to bullying homosexuals.
Duck: in Ottawa, the capital of Canada, there is a dedicated homosexual neighbourhood, much like the Chinatown and Little Italy neighbourhoods in that city. Businesses like Blockbuster (bankrupt), Bridgehead, Second Cup and even dollar stores all display the Pride Flag in their windows. There is even an entire wall with homosexual graffiti art and poetry on it, not to mention the Pride Parades, so there’s virtually no way to miss this neighbourhood.
Yeah, and again, that’s because people like to live with people like them. As you said, just like the chinatown and little italy. People who are not chinese are more than welcome to live in chinatown, non italians in little italy, and non homosexuals in the homosexual neighborhood. I’m sure that the chinatown and little italy neighborhoods have pride paraphanalia of their neighborhood all over the place too.
@Duck: So, because there was not mainstream acceptance of gays in 1969, this memo must necessarily be instantly dismissed?
Your logic is busted.
And what does the rest of your comment have to do with anything? Compulsory abortions are not “nature.” Limiting childbearing only to those deemed fit is not “nature.” Deliberately arranging things to increase incidents of major depression is not “nature.” Nobody is claiming we should overpopulate the planet. We may disagree on how many people is too many, but the Earth is a finite system so there will be an upper limit to how many people it can support. Everyone knows this. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make bringing it up, Benjamin Franklin notwithstanding. I mean, he said a lot of witty stuff, but that doesn’t make it all relevant at once.
FYI
If you click on Ducks name it will take you to her facebook page. Down the page aways she yaps with her “readers” about her treatment here on Jill’s blog by certain “accusers.” And also mentions that her “co mods” post here under certain monikers.
So you never know….you could be the next person quoted on Duck’s facebook page!!
Always good to keep things on the up and up eh, Duck?
Alice,
I meant that we should be encouraging people to think about sustainability. Can a family afford 8 kids? No? Ok, then don’t have 8 kids. Use contraception. That sort of thing. Not compulsory anything. Compulsory is just not ok.
Hey Carla, the only thing I quoted was my accusations. And I never hid behind the fact that I have a facebook page that talks about Jill Stanek’s blog. I did interview her remember?
Duck, if your “niche” theory applies to humans then why bother? Eventually your god “Mother Nature” will shake us off anyway. No need to worry about population control or “moderation” or whatevs. Mama Nature will “correct” things for us! Woohoo! Another pass at responsibility!
Anyway,
There is enough food for everyone. Everyone on Earth right now could fit in Texas and have a nice sized home with a bigger yard than mine (and I’ve got a nice yard). There is not a “food shortage” or a “population problem”. That is eugenicist propaganda! People starve because of poor infrastructures and communist dictatorships who put military building above infrastructure building and know that a weaker smaller population is easier to control. Hello Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc etc…. It is no coincidence that the largest and most horrific genocides and mass starvations occurred during the communist boom and no coincidence that eugenics became all the rage beforehand. They are all connected. We still have the shameful dregs of our American participation in the human breeding fad influencing us and our governments. Eugenics cheerleader Margaret Sangers “Planned Parenthood”.
Anyone with eyes to see can clearly see at least half of that memo in action today. All this political soft balling on China’s oppressive and murderous one-child policy is hints and preparation for the “nudge”ing of American child-limitation policies in the works. Currently pharmaceutical companies are adding ingredients to vaccines they KNOW have a negative effect on fertility. They encourage vaccines for the thrid-world countries because they have outbreaks of “preventable” diseases which could be better prevented with education and CLEAN RUNNING WATER, but does our gov. or NATO dig wells and teach people how to make soap???? No. We send refrigerated vaccines. A box of refrigerated vaccines to the children dying by the thousands in Africa from starvation. If we could do that, why couldn’t we have sent FOOD????????? We have enough. Because our priority is not feeding the starving or saving human lives. Our priority is POPULATION CONTROL. Our priority is worshiping and protecting Mother Earth. Our priorities are all messed up :(
interesting…duck swore she wasnt a troll but i guess she lied. pip did the same thing. why would you do that duck? and i was just beginning to think you were on the up and up. sad.
TCH,
It’s not just the food supply that goes into a niche. Waste, water, air, shelter, those are just our primitive needs. Add in technological “needs” and consumptions for those “needs” and it’s no wonder that we have a real population problem. It’s not just propaganda. Our species is using up fuel that takes millions of years to create at an alarming rate. We have a consumerist disposable culture that causes millions of tons of waste. Those are real problems, not just propaganda talking tools. If we continue those actions, we will see a dramatic loss in population when the earth does shake us off. If we use our intelligence as a species to fix the problem, instead of our greed to perpetuate the problem, we could live peacefully with Earth before that happens. It’s not a conspiricy theory, it’s not propaganda, it is reality.
Heather, Carla accuses me of being a troll, if going by the definition of going to a site you disagree with then yes, I’ll accept that. The point though, is that I do have legitimate conversaton with two or three people on this site, so I’m not just coming over here to start Sh.. like Carla is accusing me of. The first time she called me a troll happened after I suggested that people seek therapy from licensed, trained, medical, cerified counselors instead of from evangelists.
I’m confused about why Duck is a troll? It isn’t automatically trolling just because you disagree.
no elizabeth you have this site confused with a pro abortion site where you have to agree to agree
I’m sorry – I’m not trying to start a fight. This memo makes me very angry and scared but I have a hard time NOT taking it with a grain of salt since a lot of the other stuff posted on this site has a very clear bias. I don’t want to go to any site where the only valid opinion is one that agrees with the masses – I’m here to learn.
Elizabeth,
Abby Johnson worked for Planned Parenthood and was pro-choice at that time. She became disturbed by what she witnessed there. This article is a reposting of Abby’s article, and her source for the document, as noted, is Planned Parenthood, 1970.
The pope didn’t tell Galleleo the world was not round.
The pope told Gallileo not to talk trash him, particularly since he (the pope) was paying for Gallileo’s pizza.
The “memo” is taken out of context (intentionally so, of course). It’s a compilation of then-contemporary policy suggestions regarding population control, not a work of political or social advocacy. Of course, being able to attach such a list to a Planned Parenthood figure plays well with conservative fear-mongering (homosexual indoctrination! mandatory abortion and sterilization! destroy the nuclear family structure!) from hucksters such as Abby Johnson. (Say, does she have a job yet, or is she just living off of book sales and speaking fees?)
I didn’t accuse you of being a troll, Duck. I called you a troll. :) You are here for facebook fodder. That is all.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The nountroll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: “That was an excellent troll you posted”.
Ducky no Pope ever told Galileo or anyone else that the world wasn’t round. The case actually had to do with geocentrism. I always find it hilarious when people who would scold the Church for its supposed oppostion to science are so scientifically ignorant themselves.
I NEVER said you were here to start sh. I don’t talk like that. I said you are here to “stir it up.”
AND why Duck are you so threatend by abortion recovery from post abortive mothers?
Why are you so threatened by ANYONE who claims to be a Christian? You come off as some bastion of “tolerance” but from what I have read of you so far you are one of the most intolerant ducks I’ve met.
This is a prolife blog. Why so surprised that folks want to debate you?
PS
Calling yourself “duck” hardly lends itself to credibility. And running back to your facebook page to tattle on prolifers to your “readers” seems……juvenile.
Hi Elizabeth,
As you might be able to gather there are quite a few commenters here that are not prolife. As long as they stick to the rules of commenting I have no problem.
This prolife site is biased? Who knew? :)
Just to be clear Duck
When I type out resources for women or men struggling from abortion(National Helpline for Abortion Recovery, Rachel’s Vineyard, my email address)you have TWICE now followed up with your own post about trained, licensed, medical certified counselors NOT evangelists.
Why? Why do you see such a problem with abortion recovery resources that to you are not duck worthy?
I have already explained to you that women that are struggling after their abortions really do want to speak with other women that have “been there.” Which is why they email, call and facebook me. The horror.
Oh and Duck?
Do you have a link to the interview with Jill Stanek?
I like the idea of filing the water supply with contraceptives. Women who want to have babies would get the antidote to it. What I like about this idea is it would mean NO MORE ABORTIONS!!!! No more human fetuses being ripped apart or pulled apart or burned and poisoned with saline — whether legally in a clean and sterile clinic or illegally in somebody’s kitchen. No more panicked pregnant women. No women committing suicide because they can’t carry to term — or because they are haunted by having undergone an abortion.
Effective, foolproof, safe contraceptives in the water supply. Women deliberately going to get the antidote so they can experience the beauty of pregnancy and the wonder of what would really be a Blessed Event.
Someday in the future, they will look back and shudder at all the horror stories caused by pregnancies that the girl or woman didn’t want. Abortion will be in the dustbin of history, not because it is illegal and there is a busy underground, but because the demand for it has dried up.
Bye-bye, ugly abortion.
Hello, universally planned pregnancies.
Richard, touche and funny :)
The so-called “Jaffe memo” is not a stand-alone memo of policy proposals. It is a summary table of proposals made by other people that accompanies this article. It does not advocate any of those measures–it is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Pro-lifers always claim the truth is on their side, but if that’s the case, why not tell it?
To anyone who really wants to know, Duck is my real life nickname. I got it from having partially webbed feet. If that seems like it’s not “credible” then too bad for you. It’s the truth.
Ah, the Gallileo myth: He didn’t get in trouble for saying the earth was round since about half the bishops at the time agreed with him. He got in trouble because he began propogating and teaching his own theology which was different from the Church’s teachings. Thanks, Richard Kent and Lori Piper, for chiming in!!
And kids, look up. Especially look up at the night sky. Resources aren’t finite. We have the whole universe to spread out and discover and populate. Water is on the planet next door to us and also water, salt water, has been discovered on other bodies in the very solar system (Saturn’s and Jupiter’s moons for example). All this fear mongering is coming from population extremists who wear tinfoil hats. Resources aren’t finite… unless you’re afraid to get off this rock because you think aliens are going to pounce on you. lol!
Remove the tinfoil hat, and embrace life.
Denise, you like the idea of filling the water supply with contraceptives?? Water our children would drink and bathe in, water our husbands would drink and bathe in, water that would be used on our food supply? Are you nuts? Do you have any respect at all for the human body and a person’s dignity? Poisoning people is not the solution to the violence of abortion.
Ninek, have you invented an economical and efficient way for the population to get off this rock and exploit all the “infinite” resources yet? No? Oh, yeah, that’s cause there isn’t one yet, and probably won’t be before we run out of fossil fuels.
Duck: Everything in moderation.
Including moderation itself. ;)
Doug :)
Wow. Denise Noe… 80% of the time what you type alarms me. This takes the cake.
They are ALREADY putting things in water that decreases fertility. Research one of the side effects of water fluoridation. I am not against anyone that wants fluoride treatments on their teeth or to take fluoride pills or use fluoride toothpaste… I am VERY against the government medicating us against our will! We have a right to know what medications we are ingesting and to say NO to medications we don’t want. See? I am actually pro-choice when it comes to someone’s own body! And I am pro-life when it comes to other people’s bodies which means you can’t decide to dismember someone else’s body or force medication into your neighbor’s body etc…
Carla,
Since you asked, Google would find it, but I’ll provide the links
http://highonquack.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-jill-wants-me-to-say.html
http://highonquack.blogspot.com/2011/05/half-of-finished-interview-still.html
All parts of the process of me writing questions, and writing the blogposts were edited and scrutinized by my prolife Roommate.
Totally disagree, Denise Noe!!
Thank you, Duck.
Duck, it’s a good thing your mom didn’t know about your webbed feet BEFORE you were born. I’m just sayin.’ Because in my opinion, people with webbed feet are not quite as fully human as those with non-webbed feet.
If that seems like it’s not “credible” then too bad for you. It’s the truth.
And what is “truth?”
For Jen and Sydney M.: I should have said that I LOVE the idea of a contraceptive in the water supply. I was postulating that it was a safe contraceptive and worked 100% of the time. If the only women who could get pregnant were the women who had to get an antidote to something in the water supply, they would likely be those who REALLY wanted the experience of carrying and giving birth! Having to jump through a hoop to get pregnant would mean that the pregnancy would be VALUED and that the pregnant woman would do everything she could to bring to term and have a healthy baby.
That would eliminate the ugly old horror of abortion. Women who want to have babies aren’t the ones seeking abortions. If no one SEEKS an abortion, it pretty much disappears.
Having it illegal didn’t prevent Eleanor Cooney, Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Russell, Whoopi Goldberg, Grace Paley, Gloria Steinem, Margot Kidder, Lillian Hellman, Anais Nin, Barbara Tuchman, Barbara LoFrumento, Jackie Smith and many, many others from having this awful procedure. I’ve read of women who committed suicide back in the days when abortion was unlawful and they had pregnancies that terrified them — the law did not lead to birth and could not since the carrier of the unborn was dead.
At the same time, having it LEGAL only means that the girl or woman aborting is less likely to be molested or raped by the abortionist or to suffer terrible complications. It in no way diminishes the horror of the dismemberment or poisoning that is visited on the embryo or fetus.
So what COULD eliminate abortion? Making certain that pregnancy always triggers delight in the woman pregnant is a major step, perhaps THE major step.
Duck,
I believe Ben Franklin had something like 17 children, most of them illegitimate. Not a good example of “moderation in all things”.
My mom knew I had a pretty good chance of webbed feet, cause I got them from my father. It’s genetic and hereditary.
It’s the truth in my comment as how I got my nickname. I’ve already given treatises about truth and Truth. But it is truth (as in verifiable) that I got my nickname because of my webbed feet.
I didn’t say he was a perfect guy, but he’s the one who coined moderation in everything, in his famous almnac publishings.
I once had an idea for a science fiction short story about some contraceptive chemical being accidentally released and ending any new births. There was a British fim recently much like that. It’s disturbing how many self-centered people would see this as a good thing.
Hans: I believe Ben Franklin had something like 17 children, most of them illegitimate. Not a good example of “moderation in all things”.
Ol’ Ben was definitely a ladies’ man.
I heard a funny one about moderation this year – from a guy at an offline gathering of wine lovers. This was pretty well into the evening, and at one point he says, “My middle name is moderation.” Given who the speaker was, people are looking at him like he has two heads…
Then he says, “My first name is ****.” (Rhymes with “Duck”) ;)
HA.
Duck, is that the same “prolife” roomate that doesn’t want abortion to be illegal?
For Jen and Sydney M.: I should have said that I LOVE the idea of a contraceptive in the water supply. I was postulating that it was a safe contraceptive and worked 100% of the time. If the only women who could get pregnant were the women who had to get an antidote to something in the water supply, they would likely be those who REALLY wanted the experience of carrying and giving birth! Having to jump through a hoop to get pregnant would mean that the pregnancy would be VALUED and that the pregnant woman would do everything she could to bring to term and have a healthy baby.
That would eliminate the ugly old horror of abortion. Women who want to have babies aren’t the ones seeking abortions. If no one SEEKS an abortion, it pretty much disappears.
Congratulations, Denise. You have taken a position that no one except the most extreme of population control enthusiasts take.
A “safe contraceptive” or synthetic estrogen for the water supply? To be consumed by animals, children, men, etc? And what of the women who do wish to conceive? They take to buying bottled water and don’t dare touch the tap or even cook with tap water?
Get help.
Doug, Good one. :)
Also, I notice you sign your posts with “Blessed be”. You’re a duck of many contradictions.
“An it harm none, do what ye will.”
Abortion harms. Abortion kills.
You’re a really crappy Wiccan, but an awesome hypocrite.
Hans: I once had an idea for a science fiction short story about some contraceptive chemical being accidentally released and ending any new births. There was a British fim recently much like that. It’s disturbing how many self-centered people would see this as a good thing.
Very interesting, Hans. Tell you what – it would definitely change things. On the movie – ‘Children of Men’ – yes:
“The world’s youngest citizen has just died at 18, and humankind is facing the likelihood of its own extinction. Set in and around a dystopian London fractious with violence and warring nationalistic sects, Children of Men follows the unexpected discovery of a lone pregnant woman and the desperate journey to deliver her to safety and restore faith for a future beyond those presently on Earth.”
I’m not Wiccan. Thanks for assuming.
I’m not an “extreme population control enthusiast.” I don’t even CARE about “population control.” The whole idea assumes that there is some ideal number of humans for the planet and we have to ensure we don’t go above that. I don’t believe the planet is fragile or that there is any specific population “right” for it.
Again, if a woman wants to get pregnant, she gets the antidote.
I’ve been accused of being a “pro-abort.” I’m horrified by abortion. However, making it illegal just seems to drive it underground and drive pregnant women to suicide.
OTOH, anything that ensures women who want to have babies are the ones getting pregnant is genuinely anti-abortion. A contraceptive in the water supply would be just the ticket to end this ugly business.
A contraceptive in the water supply would be just the ticket to end this ugly business.
No, Denise, you don’t seem to be getting it.
Putting a contraceptive in the water supply would not only affect women, but men, children, and animals as well. Some sources already claim different drugs and synthetic estrogens have entered the water supply and have caused ecological harm.
What is the “antidote” to an oral contraceptive? Not consuming it. That means if a woman would wish to get pregnant, she would have to refrain from consuming any water from the water supply. That means not even cooking with tap water.
You have now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you live in fantasy land and really have very little critical reasoning power or thought behind your posts.
Oh noes, poor widdle abortion advocates don’t know how to build, invent, or innovate…then just stay here and mope while the rest of us venture forth.
How many abortion advocates does it take to change a lightbulb?
None! They’d rather sit in the dark and complain.
Duck: I meant that we should be encouraging people to think about sustainability. Can a family afford 8 kids? No? Ok, then don’t have 8 kids. Use contraception. That sort of thing. Not compulsory anything. Compulsory is just not ok.
Nothing against “thinking about sustainability,” but it’s not really simply a “one-way street” where we have to mentally embrace it, else it’s disregarded. We already have “rationing by price,” as with food and fuel.
In my lifetime alone, the world’s population has gone from 3 billion to over 7 billion. Obviously, this can’t go for many iterations, and it won’t anyway, since there are some built-in controls. We had a huge decline in mortality, and later on this results in a decline in fertility; people’s wills change.
Doug agreed, it’s not a one way street. But denying the reality of the problem doesn’t make it go away.
Sorry I assumed you were Wiccan because you were…acting like one. How foolish of me. XD
blessed be, is not just a wiccan phrase.
Kel says:
November 28, 2011 at 4:27 pm
A contraceptive in the water supply would be just the ticket to end this ugly business.
No, Denise, you don’t seem to be getting it.
Putting a contraceptive in the water supply would not only affect women, but men, children, and animals as well. Some sources already claim different drugs and synthetic estrogens have entered the water supply and have caused ecological harm.
What is the “antidote” to an oral contraceptive? Not consuming it. That means if a woman would wish to get pregnant, she would have to refrain from consuming any water from the water supply. That means not even cooking with tap water.
You have now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you live in fantasy land and really have very little critical reasoning power or thought behind your posts.
(Denise) I was making the assumption that she would go to a doctor or pharmacy and receive and antidote that would make her immune to the contraceptive in the water supply.
Leaving aside the question of legality or illegality, what measures do you suggest to ensure that the women who get pregnant are the ones who want to have babies?
Denise, there isn’t an “antidote” for a contraception. And as already pointed out what kind of harm would you be doing to little girls and boys drinking this water? Possibly setting them up for sterility or cancer later in life?
What about poor women who couldn’t access this “antidote” but might wish to have their fertility left intact?
What about the people relying on this contraception water that don’t drink enough or it somehow fails and they get pregnant anyhow thinking they wouldn’t? you don’t think abortion would still be demanded? Please. Contraception has not “cured” abortion. We HAVE contraception and we still have abortion.
Those who have read my posts before know I don’t have a problem with non-hormonal contraception for married folks but even I who have used condoms with my husband know and understand that contraception can “fail” and babies can be created. It has never been and never will be foolproof! We have to change our attitude concerning children before abortion can ever be eradicated. Even eliminating poverty won’t eradicate abortion as rich women have abortions all the time while poor women (like me) have given birth to unplanned children.
Sydney M., leaving aside questions of legality which we can go round and round endlessly, what would you suggest?
Will we ever have a situation in which only those who are at least prepared for babies are the only ones getting pregnant?
Ninek: Oh noes, poor widdle abortion advocates don’t know how to build, invent, or innovate…then just stay here and mope while the rest of us venture forth.
Duck: Our species is using up fuel that takes millions of years to create at an alarming rate.
Here we have two diverging views. ;) For one thing, I’d note that those extensively schooled in science and engineering tend to be more pro-choice than those that aren’t, but no big deal, not compared to the impact that energy has on all our lives.
Technology is a real wild card, and look how far we went in the last century. What will the world be like in 2100?
I can’t rule out that we’ll come up with things to substantially mitigate the very real problems that Duck mentions, but there are some huge hurdles to overcome. Fossil fuels are a good example. It’s hard to beat good old crude oil. It takes roughly one “barrel” of energy to get five barrels of oil, a darn good return. With the oil sands or tar sands, it takes about four barrels to get five barrels of oil, so a 25% return versus a 400% return.
Ethanol from corn and biodiesel offer even lower returns, if they are positive at all. Fusion reactors, etc., offer some promise but are decades away, at least. Going to other planets, etc., isn’t any serious solution barring immense technological leaps, if they are possible at all.
Doug, exactly. Then on top of the returns, you have the problem of destroying the environment. Meterology is still a science in infancy, and we don’t yet fully understand the implications of our use/misuse of the environment on changing weather patterns. I’m not even talking about “global warming”, I’m talking about where will it rain, and where will it dry out? That sort of thing. It’s only in the last few years (possibly a decade or two) that science has “Rediscovered” what many earth based cultures of the past understood, is that the Earth’s various systems (geological, biological, hydrological, etc) are extremely interconnected, and a change in one, effects the others.
Duck: Doug agreed, it’s not a one way street. But denying the reality of the problem doesn’t make it go away.
No doubt. No amount of “blue-skying” and “pipe-dreaming” can change the fact that even with technological improvement, we’re still depleting the earth and polluting it at ever-faster rates.
My point about the “natural controls” at work is that scarcity means more expensive (in general) and thus we tend to use less. We’re close to or past peak world oil production, but that doesn’t mean we “run out” tomorrow. There will always be some oil available, albeit at higher production costs.
We’re pretty good at adapting, but not usually on the basis of “a word to the wise,” rather it’s that we’re forced to change, relatively rapidly. Interesting times….
Duck: Meterology is still a science in infancy, and we don’t yet fully understand the implications of our use/misuse of the environment on changing weather patterns.
Yeah – drought, etc., and what happens if the oceanic heat “conveyor” currents are disrupted. That would prompt some real scrambling. :)
Right? Nothing like rain no longer coming down to change people’s views on the gauruntee of food supply.
ninek says:
November 28, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Oh noes, poor widdle abortion advocates don’t know how to build, invent, or innovate…then just stay here and mope while the rest of us venture forth.
(Denise) I wasn’t advocating abortion but a possible way to stop it.
Sydney M. says:
November 28, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Denise, there isn’t an “antidote” for a contraception. And as already pointed out what kind of harm would you be doing to little girls and boys drinking this water? Possibly setting them up for sterility or cancer later in life?
(Denise) Any possible harm must be balanced against the harm of abortion.
<<What about poor women who couldn’t access this “antidote” but might wish to have their fertility left intact?>>
(Denise) Impoverished women who have babies have to be able to access things like food, shelter, diapers, and other necessities for their babies. The antidote should not be something extremely expensive but if she is so poor she can’t afford diapers or shelter — if for example she is on the street and her only food source is the dumpster — it might be a good idea for her NOT to get the antidote until she can afford basics.
Again, any harm must be balanced out by the eradication of the problem pregnancy that leads to abortion. I was postulating a safe drug that would prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Everything has costs and benefits.
Denise: I wasn’t advocating abortion but a possible way to stop it.
What do you think abortion laws will be like on Neptune?
Well if Duck is a troll then you guys were certainly trolling the Planned Parenthood page the other day.
Doug says:
November 28, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Denise: I wasn’t advocating abortion but a possible way to stop it. What do you think abortion laws will be like on Neptune?
(Denise) Abortion starts with, “Oh, no, I’m pregnant!”
I want a society in which there is only, “How wonderful! I’m pregnant!”
The law is to a large extent irrelevant. It can only do so much. If a pregnant woman commits suicide in despair over the possibility of carrying to term, the embryo or fetus does not get born regardless of the abortion laws.
(Denise) Abortion starts with, “Oh, no, I’m pregnant!”
I want a society in which there is only, “How wonderful! I’m pregnant!”
Right on! I’m def. with you on that! :) But I disagree with your method. When I was young I used to imagine like you, except that in my imaginings everyone was sterilized at birth and only after parenting classes, psychological tests, etc. could a couple obtain a “permit” and have their individual tubes untied or whatever. Viola! Only wanted babies, only good parents having them! But that is a very arrogant, short-sighted, and ultimately enslaving scenario. I couldn’t see it until I shared that idea with my husband and he replied, “We would then have “back-alley” tube-fixers and have to have safe-houses for pregnant women because those who couldn’t obtain permits would be cutting babies from wombs, let alone the kidnapping rate sky rocketing…” and he went on and on! I didn’t think about that…… as bad as it is now, with women most likely to die a violent death and suffer domestic abuse while pregnant than at any other time, imagine if pregnancy was that much rarer and that much harder to obtain! No, it wouldn’t work. Let alone the problem with population sustainability and upside down top heavy populations. We’re worried about the limited workforce providing for the large number of baby-boomers after retirement. Japan has this problem amplified a thousand times right now. China is constantly being hit with the repercussions of starkly limited birth-rates….. no, it doesn’t work.
You offered your above quote as the end result of your solution to abortion. I say, the end of abortion BEGINS with this quote. :)
Sydney M.: Denise, there isn’t an “antidote” for a contraception. And as already pointed out what kind of harm would you be doing to little girls and boys drinking this water? Possibly setting them up for sterility or cancer later in life?
Denise Noe: Any possible harm must be balanced against the harm of abortion.
You. Utter. Idiot.
The measures your suggesting could easily have fatal effects on thousands of children and adults. What you suggest is simply yet another form of violence and harm against defenseless human beings. Either you are the most complete troll possible or else a total moron.
Me? I’ve got no problem with trolling, but it’s funny how many trolls don’t like to be called on it.
You abortion advocates are almost hilarious (if it wasn’t so sad and tragic) with your incongruent theories on the environment. “Fossil fuels are bad, but we can’t do anything else! People are hurting the environment so let’s pour more synthetic hormones into the water system! We can’t think of solutions ourselves, so let’s just kill as many humans as we can so nobody else lives to innovate!!” All the while using your smart phones to make such comments which you enjoy because of the hard work and innovation of an adopted man and his family!
Like I said, just sit in the dark and complain: that’s what you’re good at.
Like I’ve been saying, abortion advocacy is completely irrational.
Blessed be the Lord.
Ninek, you never asked me what my thoughts were about solutions. Instead, you made comments about the universe being infinite because we can reap more resources there. So, maybe before you lump all of us concerned about sustainability into do-nothing categories, ask us first.
Denise, have you ever considered the possibility that “unplanned” pregnancies can sometimes bring the greatest joy to women? Patricia Heaton has a quote “Women deserve unplanned joy”
my son was conceived despite my stupidity in poisoning my body with toxic contraceptive pills. It was the wrong time for a baby, we didn’t have any money, we had small 1 bedroom apartment, we were both working a lot of crazy hours, we were still newlyweds and wanting to enjoy more “us” time… blah blah blah.
EVERY DAY I thank God for giving us our firstborn boy. In His infinite wisdom He knew what we needed as a family even if my husband and I didn’t. I am SO THANKFUL my pill failed. I am thankful God knew better.
I have seen “unplanned” pregnancies change the lives of my friends for the better. The ones they didn’t abort that is. I’ve watched them abort unplanned pregnancies and suffer then get pregnant again unexpectedly and their children changed their whole lives for the better.
The issue isn’t that we need contraception the issue is that we need to value other human beings and stop being so freaking selfish all the time!
And my son’s health isn’t “collateral damage” in the abortion war, thank you very much. You would like to dump carcinogens into the water supply that could KILL children with cancer and yet somehow you think this is better than abortion?
Denise: I want a society in which there is only, “How wonderful! I’m pregnant!”
The law is to a large extent irrelevant. It can only do so much. If a pregnant woman commits suicide in despair over the possibility of carrying to term, the embryo or fetus does not get born regardless of the abortion laws.
Agreed – it would be better if every pregnancy was wanted. Pro-Lifers and Pro-choicers alike would be glad.
Denise, everyone drinks from the water supply, including CHILDREN. Do you want to poison the still developing bodies of young children. with artificial hormones? And contraceptives are HARMFUL as they cause side effects like blood clots and increased risk of breast cancer.
My brother has 4 children. My sister has 3. If Planned Parenthood had their way, I would not have my 4 year old nephew (my brother’s only son), my 7 year old nephew (sister’s youngest) and my 19 month old niece (brother’s youngest) !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This memo makes me sick and it proves that the eugenics obsession of Planned Parenthood did not end with Margaret Sanger’s death!
You do realize Doug that sometimes pregnancies INITIALLY aren’t “wanted?” But once the dust settles and the shock wears off and all fears, worries and anxiety are talked through women CAN be strong? Once you hear that little heartbeat or see that baby on ultrasound a woman CAN change her mind and what seems like the “worst” thing can become one of the “best?”
My fourth came at a very tough time. No question. And he will be 6. Thank God that initial reactions can be temporary and 9 months is just long enough to work so much of it out.
Abortion solves nothing.
Not everyone believes that “abortion solves nothing”. There are many in the world who disagree.
Duck, my friend was urged by family to abort her second child. She had already aborted her first at their urging. The reason they wanted her to abort was that she was unmarried, drank and partied too much, was bad with money, the father seemed like a loser, she had just started cosmetology school etc…
She finally decided (after initially scheduling an abortion) to have her daughter. She married the father. They have been married over 3 years. They live in a cute townhouse. They save their money and don’t party anymore. The father stopped being a loser and stepped up to provide for his family. The mother finished cosmetology school. Nobody cared that they weren’t married when they had the baby. All the problems that abortion would have “solved” would still have existed after the abortion because it was having that baby that led them to find real solutions to the problems, not merely sweeping it under the carpet.
Problems are temporary and abortion is forever. Abortion does not solve problems. Its masks them.
I still say, that not everyone agrees that “abortion solves nothing”.
I ran down the origins of the “Jaffe memo.” In spite of what Ms. Johnson wants you to believe, it was never a government-commissioned list of proposals. Rather, it is a summary table published within an article that reviewed recent literature on population growth in the US; the article itself was intended to explain the “tone” of the debate on population control at the time. The article concludes that people writing about population control in the US were mostly driven by “two general areas of concern: population pressures worldwide, and urban and environmental deterioration at home.” (Quoting directly from the article). Every single suggestion in the article is a summary and assessment of the theories proposed by (again quoting the article) “some of the nation’s leading scientists and social theorists and other commentators – biologists, ecologists, demographers, economists, sociologists – who have addressed themselves to the question of U.S. population growth and its consequences.” Nothing in the article represents a policy suggestion by Planned Parenthood or the article’s authors (Robin Elliott, Lynn C. Landman, Richard Lincoln, Theodore Tsuoroka).
Anyone with have access to a university library can look this up for him or herself. The article is called “Population Growth and Family Planning: A Review of the Literature,” and it appears in Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. i-xvi. I’d also be happy to e-mail it to interested parties; you may contact me at prolifelies (at) gmail (dot) com.
Nice job with the research work Lisa. Feel free to email that to me, or link it on my facebook page http://www.facebook.com/HighOnQuack
WHUT?
You mean to tell me that proaborts disagree with prolifers?? Really?? I am absolutely flabbergasted!!
Duck
Care to elaborate on how paying someone to kill your own child helps, heals or empowers women?
No need to elaborate, AGAIN, as to why aborting a fetus, not a child, children are born, is not “abortion solves nothing”. Why should I AGAIN state what I’ve already stated so many times in just the last couple days? Why should repeat AGAIN the words that you yourself accused me of trolling because of stating? Why should I restate AGAIN what you’ll probably just dismiss anyway?
People know their own situations better than you, an individual, could ever expect to know about everyone else. Just because you think your abortion solved nothing, and you think that many women abortions solve nothing, that doesn’t mean, that somewhere in the world, a woman knows her own life to make that decision for herself, and whoa it’ll actually solve something.
If all you do is keep repeating yourself over and over and over AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN
why are you here?
Honestly.
Why do you THINK that abortion solves something?
I think it solves something because in many cases it does. I don’t pretend to know better than a woman and her doctor. But I do know that there are women who have been in that situation for many complicated reasons, who felt it did solve something. Never been in that situation myself, but I trust my friends, family, and others who’ve spoken up about it, who said it HAS solved something.
As for why I’m here, to discuss issues with people.
WHAT does it solve?
You don’t pretend to know better than a woman and her doctor and yet you APPLAUD anyone who has an abortion? You promote, advocate and applaud abortion.
Doesn’t matter the reason or the situation or the complicated scenarios……
A growing, innocent human being is killed in utero. A woman PAYS someone to end the life of her child. Sheesh. Every abortionist knows exactly what you yourself deny.
It solves nothing.
Now why don’t you say this……not everyone believes it solves nothing or that it’s a child. Not a child until birth……
eyeroll
It’s not a child til birth. And it’s not my job to disclose the personal reasons why people have told me have had an abortion, especially not to you. If you don’t like that then too bad.
I am not asking you to “disclose” personal information from your friends who have killed their children via abortion, duck.
If I don’t like it then too bad??
What are you? 12 years old?
I’m not 12. I’m just not going to play games with you.
Yeah.
All you’ve got is games.
That’s your opinion
yes – abortion rather ends the life of a pre-born human. How quickly we forget the human cost here – and it affects the human that can not fight back, defend itself or have a defense attorney. This also does not take any account of the possible cost (physical, emotional, spiritual) to the mother or the father or the family.
When we choose death – it’s very serious. And permanent. every child lost is gone forever – including their family, and their family and their family. it changes the family tree forever.
also – regarding the contraceptives in the water – I have, and millions like me were maimed in utero due to mothers ingesting man-made hormones. some of these DES daughters never could have children. Some could never carry children. some had early cervical and other cancers, and they have no idea what will happen when these women hit menopause.
They also found that both men and women of DES daughters can have reproductive problems too. So it drops into the next generation – all because the grandmothers ingested man-made hormones. This is real. We (mankind) do not do a better job than natural – we mess with the natural order of things, and especially with the body – there are consequences.
We’ve done enough damage. we don’t have to add more, in order to have human engineering.
and regarding birth – that is only a change in locale – not in nature of the child or it’s essence. Since children are born at practically any state in the pregnancy – if a child that is born at 30 weeks is the same as the child in utero at 30 weeks – why is one afforded protection and the other treated as chattal. worse – the one in utero can be destroyed legally. Same human – different locale. it’s not a a change in the makeup of the child. no justice, no peace. Either one protects all humans, or it’s chaos.
Funny how Duck always says she is repeating herself and yet no one caught it the first time or the 100th time. I don’t think you actually explained how abortion solves problems Duck. In fact, no you didn’t.
I shared a story of my friend to demonstrate how abortion need not be the answer to problems that really are temporary.
Maybe you could share a story showing how you think abortion solves problems.
Btw, Dr. Curtis Boyd, an abortionist, admits it is killing children. Why don’t you? you think you know more about abortion than an actual abortionist?
And I love “a woman and her doctor”. All of my friends who aborted never got to meet their doctors! Most don’t even know the doctor’s name! They paid their money, they got on the table, the doctor came in and did the abortion and that was that. Even their follow up appointments were with nurse practitioners not with the actual abortionist. But keep yacking on and on about “a woman and her doctor”. I’d say most women have a deeper relationship with their manicurist or hairdresser than they do their abortionist.
Why should I AGAIN state what I’ve already stated so many times in just the last couple days?
Duck, it is because a) you state what you say is the truth without giving any reasons or engaging in any rational discussion. Simply stating something, no matter how many times you say it, can never convince anyone. b) What you have stated here again and again is manifest nonsense and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this.
For instance, this whole thing about an unborn child being “a member of the species homo sapiens before birth but not a member of the community of the species until birth.” In all your posts that I’ve read, I’ve never seen you give a definition of this interesting entity “community of the species,” nor describe why an unborn child doesn’t belong to it.
Plus, yours is obviously not a commonly-recognized term. I’ve never even heard other pro-choicers use it (and I’ve heard just about everything “pro-choice” crowd can come up with here). I therefore have to conclude that this term is your own invention, or is simply held by very small coterie of people just like you. It’s not something that everyone would agree on, obviously, since it’s something very few have ever heard of. It might be easier if perhaps you enlighten us about the meaning and origin of this term.
Again and again and again, you have refused to give a definition, give a rationale for stating why this “community” is so all important, or even described how a mere change of location for an unborn child means an ontological change (you apparently consider yourself some kind of an expert on “philosophy,” so there is a philosophical term for you) or even the change in “status” you harp on.
I think you just started with the vague idea that being part of a community involves interaction with, or awareness of other members of the group (in this case, our human species) and that some special status is conferred by this, a status over and above simply being members of the group, and this is what the unborn child lacks.
Your opinion on the meaning of this interaction or awareness is highly debatable in itself, but beyond that, the thing is, it’s not true of the unborn child. Babies recognize their mothers’ voices at birth. It’s been demonstrated. And why do you think they do that? They have listened to their mothers voices before birth. In another case I read just recently, it was a father who talked to his child the most in utero, so his was the voice that was recognized. Parents have described real interactions with their unborn children. They can be influenced by things their parents do in the outside world, such as the music they play.
So your opinion would fail. Provided that this is what you really think, and I’m not so sure even of that.
Can you see why it’s so frustrating for pro-lifers to try and debate with you?
You are probably thinking to yourself right now “That’s because pro-lifers are dumb and I am brilliant.”
Don’t bet on it.
*standing ovation for Lori Pieper*
Welcome to the Big Bad Bully Club. We eat Ducks for breakfast. RAWR!
Denise,
Abortion toleraters like to say we’re just sparing children from miserable lives of poverty and mistreatment. Now you would like to see a pan-contraceptive to spare women from having to trouble their little heads with considering abortion.
What’s the next backward step? Sterilization at puberty? If you want to change the world, you must change the heart and mind. Don’t keep looking for the easy way out. It’s a cop-out and you won’t like where you end up.
“Simply stating something, no matter how many times you say it, can never convince anyone.”
Isn’t that how it’s done here? “Abortion’s just like slavery and the Holocaust, cuz I say it is! Embryos are people, because, uh, science! and stuff.”
“…Embryos are people, because, uh, science! and stuff.”
And with that one statement, it becomes painfully obvious just how willfully ignorant joan is.
1.) embryos are HUMAN BEINGS. THAT is what we say, because by definition, human beings ARE persons, and it can be demonstrably proven that gestating human beings ARE human beings (see section 2). This whole splitting hairs over “person/people/personhood” and creating different categories of human beings thing is YOUR GUYS’ bag, and you use it to try and legitimize supporting large-scale killing of vulnerable human beings by their parents.
2.) Yes, because our argument totally amounts to “science and stuff”. We never, EVER get into particulars and try to get it through your thick skulls that according to embryology, genetics, biology, etc., the organisms that exist inside of women when they are pregnant in their reproductive systems ARE alive, ARE human beings, and ARE biologically their children. Nope. Not us.
Sydney M. says:
November 28, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Denise, have you ever considered the possibility that “unplanned” pregnancies can sometimes bring the greatest joy to women? Patricia Heaton has a quote “Women deserve unplanned joy”
(Denise) I KNOW this is true and have often pointed it out. My youngest brother was unplanned and my mother calls him “the cream of the crop.”
I’ve recommended a novel by Joyce Carol Oates called “Son of the Morning.” The protagonist, Nathan Vickery, was conceived in the brutal gang-rape of a 15-year-old virgin.
However, my point is that girls and women don’t seek abortions for wanted pregnancies. They don’t commit suicide because of wanted pregnancies.
If it were possible to successfully put something in the water that rendered all fertile females temporarily infertile and the woman had to seek an antidote before pregnancy were possible, it would mean that every pregnancy was wanted and that every pregnant woman would be likely to guard that pregnancy with her life!! She wouldn’t be drinking and drugging in despair, she would be watching her diet and eagerly looking forward to the birth.
That would render abortion a brutality of the past when at least some girls and women panicked when they got pregnant.
Yes, everyone drinks the water. This is just speculation — and hope. My hope would be that the contraceptive of the future would not have bad effects on children and men or that an antidote could be developed for any such effects that they would take regularly.
The good that would result — the end of pregnancy panic, abortion, suicides because of pregnancy — would be enormous!!!!
Let me make a fuller explanation. Carla and Ninek think I’m a “pro-abort.” The truth is that I abhor abortion. A main reason I isolated myself as a teenager is I knew that as a self-conscious, emotional, highly sexed young lady, I would be vulnerable to seduction. I knew I couldn’t be a good mother and might not be able to complete a pregnancy. Thus, I was haunted by the specter of tiny legs and arms being torn off. That’s why I stayed in my room all the time. I hate abortion. I’m just not sure that making it illegal actually stops this horrible activity or just adds to the horror with more horror.
A woman who had to jump through hoops to get pregnant would be very unlikely to do anything but welcome a truly Blessed Event. That’s what a birth ought to be!
clapping for all the pro lifers! great job especially to carla;) carla vs. duck. anyway duck… im a nurse and i speak to doctors often. they will tell you that abortion is murder. they wont participate in abortion. sorry all you have is the opinion of abortionists and women like you who will lie and tell you a fetus isnt human. fetus is latin for “little one” so could you please explain “little one” what? a little fish? a little lamp? what? im waiting. while i was pregnant my doctor used both. baby and fetus. they are one in the same.
Weren’t we supposed to be suffering from massive outbreaks of faminine, starvation and wars by now? At least, that’s what I was led to believe by the eco/population alarmists.
“It’s not a child til birth.”
Not according to the English language ^_^
Duck has never seen an ultrasound, obviously. Especially a 3D or 4D one.
For Some Guy: The whole overpopulation idea depends on there being some ideal amount of human population on the planet. There really is not special number over which you have too many people or too few people.
Again, I don’t care about “overpopulation.” The reason I’d LOVE to flood contraceptives into the water supply is just to dry up the demand for abortion. No legal abortions, no busy underground of abortions, no women committing suicide because they can’t get abortions. Just pregnancies that are wanted and cherished and Blessed Events.
Carla says:
November 28, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Totally disagree, Denise Noe!!
(Denise) If it were only possible for the woman to get pregnant after she went to a doctor or pharmacy to get the antidote to a contraceptive, wouldn’t she be likely to very much want to get pregnant and have a baby? Wouldn’t she be likely to take good care of herself during the pregnancy, making it likely the baby would be born healthy? It seems to me that abortion would pretty much dry up. Yes, I suppose circumstances could change during the pregnancy but that would be rare enough that the VAST majority of pregnant women would happily carry to term and give birth because they would be those who YEARN to become mothers.
Perhaps there would be a few abortions but certainly the number would RADICALLY decrease. Babies born would enjoy every advantage as the women who carried them to term would have been likely to seek and receive good pre-natal care.
and duck you havent put anything out there except your opinion. can you please put something factual out there? its just typical of the pro death crowd. they allow themselves to be dumbed down by society and other pro aborts. i can think for myself. i wouldnt even listen to a pro abortion doctor. abortion is murder. it always has been and it always will be.
Get help, Denise.
The reason I’d LOVE to flood contraceptives into the water supply is just to dry up the demand for abortion.
Denise, that is not true. I have heard women tell their abortion stories… aborting planned and ORIGINALLY wanted pregnancies. Or in some cases, the woman wanted the pregnancy but others didn’t. That happened to my own friend. She wanted her baby. The father wanted the baby. But her parents didn’t and coerced her into an abortion that emotionally devastated her.
What about women who WANT their baby and planned that baby and yet an adverse fetal diagnosis leads them to a late term abortion doctor?
Being planned and wanted can change at any time as Carla pointed out. My first son was unplanned… always wanted. My second son currently in my womb was planned and at first wanted… I was so sick with nausea and vomiting for four months that there were truthfully times I didn’t want him. That sounds awful but thats the truth. There were moments I wished I wasn’t pregnant. But never did I have the right to kill my son because my feelings had changed. Planned, unplanned, wanted, unwanted… all subjective feelings that can change at the drop of a hat. And often do. Abortion is not so easy to peg down. The reasons why women have them are varied. What we need to do is teach respect for human life and also offer support and help to women so that abortion never becomes an option.
And again to Duck’s point, that abortion solves problems. I was REALLY sick… vomiting all day long, only able to lay on the couch and moan. I think I had mild HG. I couldn’t play with my son. Just fixing him lunch had me lurching over the toilet. But the sickness finally began to pass and while I still throw up occasionally I see the light at the end of the tunnel as far as this pregnancy goes. Problems are temporary. Abortion is forever.
Joan, we have explained time and time again how abortion is like the holocaust and like slavery. We have demonstrated how the mindset of slave owners and Hitler is akin to the mindset of pro-aborts like yourself. We have gone through it on many threads. I’m sorry you weren’t paying attention.
“Science and stuff”… you’re a real hoot Joan. Wasn’t it your pro-abort buddies who said that XX chromosomes equal male? Wasn’t it your side caught on tape advising a pregnant girl that “heat tones” aren’t heard till the 6 month (funny… heart starts beating at 21 days. There is a great video on youtube “Ted Talks” called “From Conception to Birth” where a scientist from Yale talks about the development of the human heart during pregnancy.PP workers could stand to watch it since they’re so woefully ignorant of “science and stuff”) Isn’t it your side that even hates the term fetus because Carol Everett said it almost makes the baby sound too human? So you use terms like “product of conception”? Science and stuff???? lol.
Sorry, * heart tones
Typing too fast and goofed…
Thank you, Sydney.
I have seen scared young women who are pressured to abort by family and friends and when she doesn’t they turn from her. They leave her all alone. A kind of “You made your bed now sleep in it.” She may really want to have that baby but doing it all alone is daunting. Abort or face a life of misery right?
My heart aches for all of the moms who did really want their babies initially and didn’t want an abortion but there was nobody there for them and they went through with it.
yeah denise you really lost me there. thats a bit nutty
oh yeah and @ duck. i go to a teaching hospital and one day i had to see a doctor who performs abortions. i didnt know it until she began discussing birth control with me. one thing led to another and thats when she told me she performed abortions. anyway her name was colleen so she said “okay lets listen to your babys heartbeat.” so its a baby because he was wanted? im sure had i been terminating it would have been “blob”…..why did colleen krejewski change her language around? its because i wasnt aborting.
joan cant wrap her head around science. its so simple. we all start out as z/e/f and then babies infants toddlers…..teens young adults middle aged adults and then elderly. we were all embryos at once but it doesnt give anyone the right to kill you.
Either you are the most complete troll possible or else a total moron.
Pretty sure it’s the second one.
Putting an estrogen into the water supply, which will not only affect women but men, children, and animals – yeah. Moronic.
prolifelies (at) gmail (dot) com.
Oh, yes. Pro-life lies. Uh huh.
You know, the average 2 year old recognizes a human fetus as human and can actually call it a “baby.”
This is more than I can say for the average pro-choicer.
This is probably because the toddler stands nothing to gain by dehumanizing another human so he/she can kill it.
*cue music* “Are you smarter than a li’l toddler?”
Oh, yeah, Denise, birth control in the water is EXACTLY what we need. </sarcasm>
http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/south-carolina/local-blog/birth-control-pill-endangers-fish-populations
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/15/prostate-cancer-may-be-linked-to-birth-control-pills-in-water-supply/
@ carla…i really hope i didnt hurt you the other day. sometimes im abrasive and blunt but the fact that you were crying hurt me. so hugs? forgive me.
u n kel rockin mods….and laura loo;)
I forgive you, Heather. Can’t recall what for exactly but we’re good.
:)
Denise, you are sounding like those who sterilized the “unfit” in the 1930s. You would also be harming women who want more than 2.1 children. There is no “antidote” for contraceptives in the water. You would be poisoning men, women, children, animals….everyone who relies on clean drinking water. Considering that contraceptives are linked to breast cancer (especially after long term use)…….
You could even potentially harm a pregnant woman!
*standing ovation for Lori Pieper*
Welcome to the Big Bad Bully Club. We eat Ducks for breakfast. RAWR!
Thanks, xalisae. I’ve been ill and have just slept through about 12 hrs of very interesting discussion, it seems.
Too back Duck has apparently ducked out. . .
Sydney and Lori Piper,
To elaborate a bit on Joan’s point. All that happens in the abortion debates, is two sides of adament hard core believers repeating themselves endlessly without any discussion actually happening. You think I haven’t made a point because it conflicts with your bias. (Again, can’t remember the source, but it was a Ted Talk), Scientific research has shown that when FACTS and EMPIRICAL DATA are shown that conflict with one’s bias, one of two things will happen. Either, the person will accept the new data and revise their bias, or they will dismiss the data and keep their bias. So, as much as I have repeated myself, you consider myself to have said nothing of importance. You all also have repeated yourselves, and I have listened, and some of the things you’ve said I’ve engaged in debate about, and others I just dismissed. Not necessarily because it conflicts with my bias (even though it does and I’ll admit that) but because as a cultural anthropologist, I simply recognized it as being a view of a different culture. Carla likes to call me a troll, but she dismisses the fact that I have, and do engage in legitimate conversation with people on this page. Xalisae and Praxedes have accused me of many things and lying and bullying from my facebook page, but anyone is welcome to come over there and see it for themselves. Carla herself has, and although she seems to not have decided whether or not to be a troll or actually engage people, she’s still welcome. Everyone is welcome. I encourage conversation, and I especially encourage people to think outside the “box” of their bias/worldview/philosophy.
I’ll tell you this, it sums up my views related to this page…
There is a distinct difference between science and philosophy. Science tells you how something works, what it’s made of, how it interacts, etc. Science does not tell you why. Science does not tell you what it “means”. It is philosophy’s job to tell you why and what something “means”. A Homo sapien sapien gestates another Homo sapien sapien, that’s science. Whether or not that fetus is a person, that’s philosophy.
The other thing, is that real dialogue is the only way to create change. If all you do is dismiss anything that contradicts you in life, you’ll never adapt and change. If you think all pro-choice people want to see abortions always happen, all the time, you’d be innaccurate. Many pro-choice people, myself included, would love to see all the thousands of mitigating factors that lead to an abortion resolved. It would lower the number. Will they still happen? Yes. Will there be as many? No. I know this next sentence will rile you Red Scare peeps, but it is ironic, that the industrialized nations with fully legal abortions, and the largest “socialist” or not socialist safety nets in their country, have the lowest abortion numbers in the industrialized world. To us pro-choicers, that simply reflects the view that in order for abortions to decrease, we need to fix our other societal problems.
All that happens in the abortion debates, is two sides of adament hard core believers repeating themselves endlessly without any discussion actually happening.
Duck, Abortion kills a living human. I am opposed to killing humans. You are not.
End of discussion.
DUCK..SINCE YOU SEEM TO THINK YOU KNOW SOMETHING BUT SHOW YOU KNOW VERY LITTLE, IT WAS NOT THE ABOUT POPE SAYING THE WORLD WAS NOT ROUND. THAT WAS ALREADY KNOWN. IT WAS ABOUT THE EARTH ROTATING AROUND THE SUN. IT WAS BELIEVED THE PLANETS ROTATED AROUND EARTH. FURTHERMORE, DUCK, THE IDEA WAS NOT ABOUT RELIGION PER SE, BUT BASED ON THE TEACHINGS OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS WHO TOOK HIS KNOWLEDGE FROM ARISTOTLE ON HOW THE PLANETS WORKED. SO BEFORE YOU YAP OFF WITH YOUR ARROGANCE AGAINST THE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
Anna,
I’ve already admitted my error in the Gallileo analogy among the threads a long time ago. I do know quite a bit. I’m not being arrogant.
Praxedes,
Thanks for being the first one to speak up and prove my point about everything I said about science and philosophy, and bias and discussion.
Carla: You do realize Doug that sometimes pregnancies INITIALLY aren’t “wanted?”
Yep, no doubt about it, Carla.
Denise: For Some Guy: The whole overpopulation idea depends on there being some ideal amount of human population on the planet. There really is not special number over which you have too many people or too few people.
Right – there are always considerations as to how things would be with less or more people on earth. We’ve talked before about just how we’d define “overpopulation.” Personally, I’d say it’s the point where more than half the people think there are too many people.
Xalisae: Yes, because our argument totally amounts to “science and stuff”. We never, EVER get into particulars and try to get it through your thick skulls that according to embryology, genetics, biology, etc., the organisms that exist inside of women when they are pregnant in their reproductive systems ARE alive, ARE human beings, and ARE biologically their children. Nope. Not us.
Well, X, you do mix the objective “human” with the subjective “children,” and try and work things backwards, i.e. going from “all persons are human beings” to the pretense that then it is proven that “all human beings are persons.” It’s not logical to do that, and moreover – it’s the fact that the unborn don’t have that status which has most pro-lifers bumming out in the first place.
joan cant wrap her head around science. its so simple. we all start out as z/e/f and then babies infants toddlers…
Honestly, Heather, that is nonsense. Joan is not disagreeing with you there.
Regarding all who object to the idea of making contraception universal and then having women who want to have babies get an antidote: Are you trying to say what follows?: “Abortion is bad but there is a limit to what we’re willing to do to stop it. Keeping the number of abortions down cannot be the only social goal.”
The whole overpopulation idea depends on there being some ideal amount of human population on the planet. There really is not special number over which you have too many people or too few people.”
—
Well, according to the likes of Thomas Malthus, Paul Ehrlich, Jared Diamond and whoever else, the world should have gone to hell in a hand basket years/decades/centuries ago, and the fact that it has not simply means they miscalculated the apparent “Population Armageddon”.
But, oh well. Such is the nature of alarmism. Claim X will happen when we get to Y, and if X doesn’t happen at Y, claim it will happen at Y + whatever extra population you want to add.
Some Guy,
Just because people decided to calculate it out exactly with poor science and reasoning skills in the past, doesn’t mean it’s not a real problem. It just means they came to the wrong conclusion. The problem still exists, even if the time frame is still abstract to us.
DENISE.
What we are saying is that putting contraception IN THE WATER SUPPLY would be HARMFUL to OTHER HUMANS AS WELL AS ANIMALS.
WE ARE SAYING IT IS NOT A VALID, HEALTHY, OR REALISTIC SOLUTION TO UNINTENDED PREGNANCY.
Sorry to “shout” but seriously. WOW.
And he** YES, there is “a limit to what we’re willing to do to stop” abortion. You don’t poison the water supply to keep women from getting pregnant.
I don’t think you’re going to get this, Denise. I really don’t.
So how’s your reasoning any different than their reasoning? The only real difference is that the aforementioned individuals were willing to commit to a specific time frame whereas you leave yourself all kinds of wiggle room, where if it doesn’t happen in the next five, ten or fifteen years, you can just claim the Earth hasn’t yet reached it’s carrying capacity but will soon enough. Even if “soon enough” really isn’t defined.
(And I realize that there’s probably a run-on sentence in the above.)
My reasoning doesn’t involve calculating a date. It just involves realizing certain facts about our earth. For example each human person requires air, water, food, and space for wastes. Fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil all require upwards of 65 million years to create. Renewable resources such as trees take 5-25 years to create, banboo takes 1-2 years. So, if we keep consuming fossil fuels exponentionally like we are, we will run out, because it takes so long to replenish the supply. Geology experts have been debating with each other for years, about how much fossil fuel resources there are left, but they all agree, that they are finite. Very finite. Then if you add in the ecological factor of retrieving those resources, the amount dwindles. Why? Because our ecological environment effects our food and water supply. And, it effects our weather patterns. The weather patterns could make dry areas wet (but not necessarily arable <farmable>) and wet areas dry. So, yeah, I don’t have a number for you, but it is still a very real problem with biological and economic impacts.
Some Guy: So how’s your reasoning any different than their reasoning? The only real difference is that the aforementioned individuals were willing to commit to a specific time frame whereas you leave yourself all kinds of wiggle room, where if it doesn’t happen in the next five, ten or fifteen years, you can just claim the Earth hasn’t yet reached it’s carrying capacity but will soon enough. Even if “soon enough” really isn’t defined.
It depends where one would say, “Okay, things really *have* gotten bad.” The price/scarcity of food, energy, water, etc., has already meant “Armageddon” for many, many people.
What would have to occur for you to say “there are too many people on earth”?
Duck: So, if we keep consuming fossil fuels exponentially like we are, we will run out, because it takes so long to replenish the supply. Geology experts have been debating with each other for years, about how much fossil fuel resources there are left, but they all agree, that they are finite. Very finite.
We’ve already run out of “the cheap stuff.” Yeah, there’s debate, but nobody with any sense is saying that we’ll keep producing as much oil as we’ve been doing. On “running out,” well, there would always be some oil left, somewhere in the earth, but the question is how much does it cost to get it.
The huge, “elephant” fields of oil have all been found, and many are near the end of their production. Oil that it didn’t pay to extract at $10 per barrel or $30 per barrel may be looking pretty good at $100 per barrel. And at $200 more would come onstream, but nothing like the 1920s through the 1970s when we were still finding new easy-to-get sources.
The increase in energy cost of the past ten years has had real impact on a lot of people and families, even in a “rich” country like the US. Gasoline at 50 cents a gallon or $1 a gallon was one thing, but at $3 or $4 it’s a different deal. Same for higher electrical rates, etc.
I wonder at what point would we see noticeably less traffic on the roads.
Exactly Doug
“The only real difference is that the aforementioned individuals were willing to commit to a specific time frame whereas you leave yourself all kinds of wiggle room, where if it doesn’t happen in the next five, ten or fifteen years, you can just claim the Earth hasn’t yet reached it’s carrying capacity but will soon enough. Even if “soon enough” really isn’t defined.”
“Soon enough” doesn’t have to be defined, and committing to a specific time frame is silly because no one can predict the future. With that said, the underlying concerns are entirely valid: you have an exponentially growing animal population (that’s us) with no natural predator and a finite amount of habitable land (and resources) on earth. I don’t think that means that at some point in the future, we’re all going to be living in urban squalor with 8 square feet of personal space per head. What it instead means is that warfare, epidemic, or radical government intervention will take care of the problem and drag civilization down with it.
I’ve got the objections now. I do understand. Everyone drinks water so it wouldn’t be consumed only by fertile females. If a drug is powerful enough to stop fertility, it has to have other effects, at least some of which might be harmful particularly to those to whom it’s not targeted. In addition, a lot of the drug would be wasted as water is used for cleaning both people and goods. Flouridation was controversial and to some extent still is because many naturally feel that the only thing that belongs in the water supply is water.
“1.) embryos are HUMAN BEINGS. THAT is what we say, because by definition, human beings ARE persons, and it can be demonstrably proven that gestating human beings ARE human beings (see section 2). This whole splitting hairs over “person/people/personhood” and creating different categories of human beings thing is YOUR GUYS’ bag, and you use it to try and legitimize supporting large-scale killing of vulnerable human beings by their parents.”
By definition? Whose definition? I’d like to know where you’re getting this definition of “person” from, and on whose authority you make the claim that all human beings are inherently “persons”. I continue to generously allow for the possibility that it’s a defensible position, with the caveat that the person making the claim must sensibly articulate and support it with more than the usual “it’s the science, stupid!” Instead, you set up and knock down this silly strawman about fetuses, babies, the “unborn”, whatever the hell you want to call them (arguing over semantics is another favorite pastime here) being alive and the biological offspring of the parents, as if somehow anyone is arguing to the contrary.
“Joan, we have explained time and time again how abortion is like the holocaust and like slavery.”
You’ve explained nothing, Sidney. You do not or cannot argue a point, you merely emote and gainsay. There is a vanishingly small number of people here who seem to be capable of putting together a coherent argument, with a conclusion that follows logically from its premises, and then defending it. “Your side, something something something!” is not an argument against me or anything I’ve said. It’s a very poor attempt at deflection.
I LOVE this!!! Most of these are things I advocate for! When using logic over emotion, these things make sense.
True, some of the suggestions are harsh. But having seen first-hand what happens when impoverished Women have high numbers of children they are financial, emotionally, and mentally unable to raise, I have to tip my hat to this man for his intelligence and concern for children.
Hold a few crack babies, and then come argue with me.
By the way, I’m working on a huge paper on maternal and infant mortality in developing nations, so I won’t be back here to read your uneducated retorts. Save it!
Peace!!!
Joan, pretty much. Kind of like I summarized, the inability to recognize data because it conflicts with one’s bias.
Duck, you come up with a long rant in which you did absolutely NOTHING to answer any of the questions I raised. Am I to presume then that you can’t answer them?
You’re right. There is a lot of difference between philosophy and science. No pro-lifer would disagree with that. What we disagree with is the “pro-choicers'” combination of completely erroneous biology and half-baked philosophy they rely on. Sometimes it’s not even half-baked philosophy. Mostly it’s just their own personal opinion erected into an ideological worldview, which everyone is expected to conform to with no questions asked. If you accuse pro-lifers of doing this, then why do you do the same thing?
Here’s the American Heritage Dictionary definition of philosophy you should be using (provided that philosophy to you is something more than “my own world view that I just happen to hold”):
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
Science would be the empirical methods in question.
In other words, in order for your statements to be “philosophy,” they have to have a rational, logical basis. That requires definitions and distinctions. It requires reasoning. This is what we pro-lifers expect when we ask you the reason for your belief. Most of us are good at reasoning. Try us.
Once more:
What is the “community of the species”? How is it different from simply “the species”?
Why is it important?
On what basis would you say that the unborn do not belong to this community? How do they come to belong after birth?
Be specific. Be detailed. Be logical.
If you simply answer again with your usual boilerplate, then it will be clear once and for all that you either have not thought your position through or are incapable of doing so.
In other words, cut the crap. (Mods, if you think this last is inappropriate, please edit out; it’s a word I scarcely ever use, but here I think it’s appropriate).
Ok, since you seem to have such trouble with this, a further hint.
Do you think the unborn don’t belong to the community of the species on the basis of having no interaction with this community? (see my long post above). Or on some other basis? If so, what?
Further hint: Don’t simply answer again “because they’re not born yet, that’s why!”
You disregard my logic because it disagrees with your bias. That does not mean however, that I committed logical fallacy. It’s simply and probably always will be, a matter of conflicting philosophy. It’s just that I unlike, the hard line pro-choice and unlike the crowd of hard-line pro-life on this blog, recognize that fact. I recognize that logical arguments are made on both sides, (as well as illogical arguments on both sides), and I encourage dialogue. Those of the hard line on either side will never actually engage in dialogue. They’ll just constantly slander each other. But I’ll tell you this much, science is on NEITHER side of this debate.
Lori, I’m sorry, I think I spelled your name wrong in an earlier post.
Duck I am not accusing you of a logical fallacy. In order to do that, you would having to be using logic in the first place. Please read my post again. Do you understand what logic is? Do you understand what a definition is? Come on, you can do this if you try. Do just one thing. Define the “community of the human species for me, please. And how is it different from the species as a whole?
I understand logic just fine. I am using logic. You simply just disagree.
That’s okay Duck; I didn’t really notice.
Hi Duck,
In the future please address me directly. This isn’t 7th grade study hall.
“Carla called me a troll. Carla came over and had a discussion on my facebook page…but she hasn’t decided whether she wants to be a troll or not……”
Why do you care what I think?
About the name, I mean. Well, it seems quite clear now that you have no ability to give any definitions of your terms or explaining your reasoning. Now we are justified in simply ignoring your argument, so don’t be surprised if we do.
Carla, I didn’t need to address you directly. I was addressing a larger communication problem about me and this site. You were an example.
Lori, some of you already were ignoring me anyway because of my aforementioned point about disregarding evidence contrary to one’s individual bias. And, again, as I’ve stated before, I’ll continue having legitimate conversations with the same people that I have been.
Lori, thanks for the understanding about the name mess up. :)
Um. Believe me. The problem is not with this site.
And we can be done now.
Duck, other people have ignored you because in the past you have constantly refused to explain your reasoning about this question.
I agree with Carla. It’s worthless to continue to ask you these questions. At least until you learn to defend what you are saying in a credible way.
Carla, “this site” in my comment … I was addressing a larger communication problem about me and this site meant simply the body of commenters. Not the physical (virtual?) blog itself.
Don’t ask questions you don’t want the answers to. Also, don’t ask questions that you’re going to ignore/disregard the answers to.
Abortion advocates have long accused us of being emotional and repeated that using religion was a bad argument against abortion. Abortion advocates have long denied kinship with Margaret Sanger, usually arguing that in the 1930’s things were different, etc.
On this thread, we have excellent examples of why abortion advocacy is so utterly irrational: now we are being mocked by an abortion extremist for using “science and stuff” at the same time other abortion extremists are arguing in favor of Sanger’s most loathsome suggestion: spike the water supply.
Jill and moderators: you are doing an excellent job! Even though the pro-abortion sites routinely delete our comments and are utterly intolerant of other opinions, this site lets anyone comment. By doing so, there is now a handy archive, right here on the internet, of the irrational lack of substance to any argument for abortion. They are digging their own selves deeper into a hole for all the world to see.
That hole you’re digging? It’s abortion’s own grave. Good riddance.
Duck, I promise not to ignore your answer, if you ever actually decide to give me one.
Here is my question: What is your definition of “the community of the species.” How is it different from “the species.” What specifically is required for membership? Sentience? Interaction with the rest of community? What??!!?
Hi Duck,
I don’t need your unsolicited advice. Thanks.
Good luck in your…um…quest.
Well, X, you do mix the objective “human” with the subjective “children,” and try and work things backwards, i.e. going from “all persons are human beings” to the pretense that then it is proven that “all human beings are persons.” It’s not logical to do that, and moreover – it’s the fact that the unborn don’t have that status which has most pro-lifers bumming out in the first place.
Doug, “children” is not subjective. My children have demonstrably been my children since conception, and I could’ve proven that fact to you any time with a DNA test that shows we share a parent/child relationship. That is not subjective in the least. They are my offspring:
off·spring
? ?[awf-spring, of-] Show IPA
noun, plural -spring, -springs.
1.
children or young of a particular parent or progenitor.
2.
a child or animal in relation to its parent or parents.
child
? ?[chahyld] Show IPA
noun, plural chil·dren.
1.
a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2.
a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3.
a baby or infant.
4.
a human fetus.
The dictionary is not subjective. WORDS MEAN THINGS DEFINITIVELY! SERIOUSLY.
Duck: “ A Homo sapien sapien gestates another Homo sapien sapien, that’s science. Whether or not that fetus is a person, that’s philosophy.”
human being
?
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.
per·son
? ?[pur-suhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a human being, whether man, woman, or child (see above): The table seats four persons.
To which joan says:
By definition? Whose definition? I’d like to know where you’re getting this definition of “person” from, and on whose authority you make the claim that all human beings are inherently “persons”.
The dictionary’s definition, joan. DUH. This isn’t closely-guarded information. It’s readily acceptable to anyone. Just type “www.dictionary.com” into your browser’s address bar, and it will all be revealed to you!
Have you ever noticed that truly intelligent people don’t have to tell you how intelligent they are?
Just thought I’d mention it. No particular reason.
ninek says:
November 29, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Abortion advocates have long accused us of being emotional and repeated that using religion was a bad argument against abortion. Abortion advocates have long denied kinship with Margaret Sanger, usually arguing that in the 1930?s things were different, etc.
On this thread, we have excellent examples of why abortion advocacy is so utterly irrational: now we are being mocked by an abortion extremist for using “science and stuff” at the same time other abortion extremists are arguing in favor of Sanger’s most loathsome suggestion: spike the water supply.
(Denise) Ninek, I understand why people object to the very idea of a contraceptive in the water supply. I said as much in a previous post. However, it is bizarre to call me ANY sort of “abortion extremist.” I’m “extremely” opposed to abortion but don’t support a complete and outright ban. I do support restrictions that I’ve described.
The idea of putting a contraceptive in the water supply is to END abortion. With only very rare exceptions, women don’t seek abortions for planned pregnancies. The water supply concept is to prevent women from even seeking abortions.
I’m not even concerned with “population control.” I just like the water supply idea because it could pretty much eliminate something I abhor, i.e., abortion.
I should probably add that I’m so opposed to abortion that, when I was a fertile high school girl on no contraception, I stayed home almost all the time and hardly ever left my room except to attend school and church. Many people remarked on my staying home and one time a neighbor who had lived next door for several months said he didn’t know our family included a daughter because he’d never seen me. Some parents remarked on how nice it must be to have such a good girl in the family who wasn’t likely to get into trouble.
I did get a boyfriend in college but didn’t engage in the type of sex that can lead to pregnancy until I was 24 and had a tubal ligation. If more women felt the way I did about abortion there would be many, many fewer abortions and fewer problem pregnancies generally.
Denise, even though you are not pro-life persay, since you don’t support the equal legal rights of gestating human beings, I appreciate that you had your tubes tied-a very responsible action.
Do you have any idea why, when I suggest tubal ligation to pro-legal-abortionists, particularly those who have had prior abortions, get VERY irate when I suggest that if they actually care so much about REAL “reproductive freedom/justice/choice”, they should advocate for better access to tubal ligation surgery because THAT choice actually IS about only THEIR body, as opposed to abortion, which is making a choice for someone else’s body.
Lori: In other words, in order for your statements to be “philosophy,” they have to have a rational, logical basis.
Nope, that’s not really right. Some people have the philosophy that the life of the unborn is the most important thing in the abortion debate, and some people have the philosophy that it’s not, that the liberty of women is more important.
Duck: But I’ll tell you this much, science is on NEITHER side of this debate.
Exactly right. Good grief – science does not pronounce upon morality. All the “shoulds” and “should nots” come from our emotions, not from “science.”
Xalisae: Doug, “children” is not subjective. My children have demonstrably been my children since conception, and I could’ve proven that fact to you any time with a DNA test that shows we share a parent/child relationship. That is not subjective in the least. They are my offspring
X, yes, they are your “offspring,” under the broad definition that means nothing more than the biological product. But that does not mean they are necessarily “children.” To maintain otherwise is again to be trying to work things backward, logically (as you’re still trying to do with Joan and “person”). By your logic, all people would be minors, since all minors are people, and there you can see the error/unsupported logical leap.
The dictionary is not subjective, per se, no, but that does not alter the fact that “baby or not” and “child or not” is subjective. You quoted the primary definition for “child,” i.e. “a person between birth and full growth.” It’s certainly correct to say that “child” does not apply until after birth, per that, at least as much as it’s correct to say that “child” applies prior to birth. The usage and scope of the definition that one chooses is most certainly subjective.
Doug, I was going by the dictionary definition of “philosophy.” See my post above. I am well aware that you and Duck want to argue on the basis of philosophy in the sense of “worldview.” If that is the case, if each person’s opinion is simply based on their worldview – which is simply a fancier way of saying that it’s their personal opinion — then why do you keep coming here to comment? No debate is even possible on your grounds, so it seems to me you’re wasting your breath. we pro-lifers, on the other hand, want reason, facts, analysis, in other words, philosophy, as I have stated. Too bad you’re so ill-equipped to take us up on it.
Still waiting for my answer, Duck.
Ninek: Abortion advocates have long accused us of being emotional and repeated that using religion was a bad argument against abortion.
The argument *is* emotion, and yeah, religion is a bad argument, but it’s just as equally bad for a pro-choicer to use.
Joan, I absolutely did explain the parallels between Hitler’s mindset and yours. Of course you don’t see it. Hitler probably thought he was a decent guy himself. You are pro-murder, pro-killing, you have demonstrated time and time again your contempt for ALL human life on this site. You actually got a little excited when a 2 year old in China was run over by a car and everyone left her to die. You have a depravity in your soul that is alarming. And no I’ve never met you, I just see this depravity come out in your comments time and time again how you celebrate the destruction of human life.
The crack baby comment… whats that about? So should those babies have been killed? Is it bad that they are here? The problem isn’t that they were conceived the problem is that their moms were on crack!
Lori: Doug, I was going by the dictionary definition of “philosophy.” See my post above.
Sure, right from the dictionary, “a system of principles.” And whether we think, per se, that that life of the unborn or the liberty of the pregnant woman is more important, on principle, is a very large contributor to one’s stance on the abortion debate. There is nothing more influential, really.
____
I am well aware that you and Duck want to argue on the basis of philosophy in the sense of “worldview.” If that is the case, if each person’s opinion is simply based on their worldview – which is simply a fancier way of saying that it’s their personal opinion — then why do you keep coming here to comment?
It’s our “views” from the get-go, or “worldview” if you will. Same for pro-lifers and pro-choicers. People like to post, to discuss, to argue and debate, and this is why people come here.
____
No debate is even possible on your grounds, so it seems to me you’re wasting your breath. we pro-lifers, on the other hand, want reason, facts, analysis, in other words, philosophy, as I have stated. Too bad you’re so ill-equipped to take us up on it.
Not true at all. All debate is possible on our grounds, since it’s really everybody’s grounds. If external facts were really the debate, it would have been settled long ago, but of course that’s not the case. It’s not a matter of anybody being ill-equipped to take you up on anything, it’s that not everybody needs to pretend that their subjective opinions are somehow magically “fact” or “science” or something else in the imagination. There is no logical need for such conflation and confusion, and many people see that.
Very well Doug
Oh, yes. Pro-life lies. Uh huh.
Kel:
I’m sure that a great many prolifers are honest people. Unfortunately, some prolifers also publish demonstrably false claims. My e-mail address refers only to those falsehoods.
Duck and Doug,
Sigh. Well I guess I’m asking too much of you. I don’t know how old you are, Duck, but I image you’re in your 20’s or 30’s. I have at least 20, probably more like 30 years on you. When I was in college, we studied philosophy, and I actually learned something from it. I have always understood why my beliefs had to be argued rationally. I keep forgetting you’re from the generation of complete relativism and that none of this means anything to you. To you there is no arguing to truth, there is no truth, there is only opinion. We who belong to the old Western tradition simply can’t have a conversation on the basis of logic with you.
Doug, you completely missed everything I was trying to say. I expect you to be able to argue on rational grounds that someone’s liberty is more important than someone’s life. If you can, you might conceivably be able to persuade me. That is what logic and debate are for. You can’t just come here and say that “I think the woman’s liberty is more important, it’s my opinion and it’s all I have to say.” No one can argue on that basis. How in the world are two diametrically opposed opinions with no rational meeting place between then “everyone’s grounds”?
Lori, you’re assuming about my logical reasoning skills. I do think the liberty of the woman’s body is more important than the fetus. The fetus doesn’t gain personhood til birth. In my philosophical view, that’s because all things gain their soul at birth. I’ve explained my reasons for this numerous times across numerous threads since I first commented on this site 6 months ago. The big difference and the reason why I’m guessing that you’re calling me a relativist instead of a rationalist, is that you disagree because it doesn’t match your worldview. And as I’ve stated (source was a Ted talk) scientific research has shown that when confronted with evidence that conflicts with one’s individual bias, one has two options revise bias and accept the new knowledge, or disregard the new evidence because it doesn’t reflect the bias. That doesn’t make me a relativist for recognizing that. The fact that I as a cultural anthropologist, can recognize that cultural differences exist in the world, doesn’t make me a relativist, it just makes me realistic.
Readers: anyone who thinks that concieved children have NO right to their own lives, that they may be killed at will for any or no reason, is an abortion advocate. If you think a child doesn’t have the right to live, you are an abortion advocate. If you think abortion is unpleasant, but a child still doesn’t have the right to his own life, you are an abortion advocate.
Readers: if you think that the solution to the anxiety and stress of a pregnancy is to kill the child, rather than address the mental health of the mother, you are an abortion advocate.
Denise: you are that and more. If you think that Margaret Sanger’s idea of spiking EVERYONE’s water supply is a reasonable “solution”, then guess what?! YOU are an EXTREMIST. Guttmacher’s own website says that 54% of women who aborted their children were using contraceptives, and since no contraceptive is 100% effective, and since all hormonal contraceptives have side-effects including blot clots, stroke, and infertility, that you would like my children and grandchildren to drink, then YOU ARE AN EXTREMIST.
You can write all the comments you want after this one, and it won’t change my mind. So try this: stop wasting your time denying that you are an abortion advocate. The minute you decide that a child has the right to his or her own life, THEN you can say you don’t like abortion. Until then, you think any little developing baby is a target and hunting season is 24/7.
Some people think we should be all soft and sweet to convert people to being pro-life. That works on some, but it won’t work on all. Sometimes, you just have to tell it like it is. I’m sorry to be harsh, but children are being murdered in their own mothers’ wombs every day on this planet, and it has to stop now.
It depends where one would say, “Okay, things really *have* gotten bad.” The price/scarcity of food, energy, water, etc., has already meant “Armageddon” for many, many people.
…Right.
You know– and you probably don’t– but you frequently talk about things you don’t understand.
Anyway, let’s start with something simple; there is no such thing as a “food scarcity”. That’s a flat out myth. There is enough food on the planet to feed everyone as food production has outstripped population growth for a heck of a long time and will do so into the foreseeable future. In fact, by 2030, it’s projected that there will be 3,050 kcal of food available per person, as when compared to 2,358 in the mid-1960’s (the chart on page 30). Furthermore, by 2030, there are expected to be 440M hungry people in the world, less than what it is now. There being poor and hungry people in the world has nothing to do with overpopulation but (1) mismanagement of resources and (2) the fact that developing countries use– and throw out– a disproportionate amount of food (I mean, the U.S. alone throws out about half its food every year). But, hey, it’s really overpopulation that’s the problem!
(Data is taken from here.)
Second of all, water scarcity is not caused by overpopulation. Water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of population increase in the last century, and, although there is no global water scarcity as such, an increasing number of regions are chronically short of water. According to FAO, water scarcity is a matter of (1) poverty and (2) failure of governments to adequately manage and maintain water systems.
(Link)
But, of course, I guess it’s easier just to scream about overpopulation than it is to actually address the issue. But, hey. Alarmism sells ;)
And finally, I laughed at your “energy scarcity” comment. I’d be quite interested in knowing how you concluded that energy is “scarce” or that even “peak oil” has been reached or even how world energy production falling. I’m just dying to know.
What would have to occur for you to say “there are too many people on earth”?
Quite possibly some of these Doomsday Scenarios that said alarmists constantly predict coming true. So, please, besides ponying up these facts which show overpopulation to be the cause of said problems, do provide me with a reasonable time frame in which I can expect the world to go to hell in a hand basket via overpopulation. I want to mark it on my calendar, barring it’s not something like 500 years into the future.
There being poor and hungry people in the world has nothing to do with overpopulation but (1) mismanagement of resources and (2) the fact that developed* countries use– and throw out– a disproportionate amount of food.
Duck, I’m sorry if I misjudged you; if you are not a relativist, you must understand that there is a truth to be argued for or against. I guess I wasn’t aware of or had forgotten your belief about us getting a soul at birth. but our argument here is not about souls, though I also believe in them. Nor is it about cultural differences.
I asked you a simple question: how to you define the “community of the species”? Your utter failure to do so led me to think that you don’t understand what a definition is or that logical argument has to be based on such. It led me to think you incredibly dense; you might have saved all this trouble by replying.
Even if you answered before to someone else on some other thread, I still deserve the courtesy of a reply.
How do you define the community we are in at birth? You might say “those who have souls”; but souls is a vague concept to some. Do you mean sentience? If so, how do you account for the fact that babies can learn to recognize their mothers’ voices in utero? Or do you mean “immortal souls” or something else? If you have some other definition, let me have it. If you really want to engage in argument you can do this.
Lori,
miscommunication may be my issue, because I’m simultaneously writing end of the term papers. Do me a favor, and I’m asking you specifically because your one of the people who has been civil in debate about this. Just after Christmas, because my term ends the 23rd, post a list of questions you really want me to answer on my facebook page, or email them to me, and I’ll dedicate an entire blogpost to writing out reasoned answers to the best of my ability. I’d rather do them justice, rather than continue the brief synopsis that I’ve been attempting in comments here. If that sounds like a swell idea to you, than awesome. Otherwise, give me some time to think about it without being utterly distracted by my school papers at the same time.
http://www.facebook.com/HighOnQuack
duckishighonquack@yahoo.com
Whoa, whoa whoa! We pro-lifers are accused of not being able to make an argument against abortion without bringing religion into it and here we have Duck talking about SOULS?
I believe every human being has a soul. Based on the fact that the Holy Spirit moved upon Mary and she conceived the Son of God, not the potential Son of God I believe the human soul enters the body at conception. But how can I PROVE that?
So even though I believe in souls I don’t use that as my reason for calling abortion murder. How do you know that souls even exist? How do you know that the soul enters at birth, not at conception?
So my baby boy in my womb right now that is clearly human (seen him on ultrasound… he looks just like a newborn baby, fingers, toes, hands, feet, arms, legs, face… genitals, heartbeat etc…) and is clearly alive ( I can feel him moving around in my womb. He responds by kicking a lot when his older brother gets too loud) doesn’t have a soul? How could you ever prove that? How do I know that Joan has a soul? Or CC? Or Duck?
I’ve given many other references to the non soul specifics held by many in the prochoice crowd.
It basically boils down to this…
Prochoice people tend to think of personhood being gained at birth. Mathematically it would look like this Life+Birth=Personhood.
Prolife people tend to think of personhood being gained at various stages before birth. Mathematically would look like this Life=Personhood.
Neither worldview is better or worse than the other, they’re just different. So long as both worldviews exist, there will always be a giant divide and a “war” between women’s reproductive rights and fetal rights.
OK, Duck, as it happens, I am involved in a very important project tonight and the next couple of weeks too. I’ll also be happy to postpone this debate until later.
In my philosophical view, that’s because all things gain their soul at birth.
and yet WE are the “bible-thumpers”, “anti-science”, and “unintelligent” ones who base their opinions entirely on emotion and their own personal opinion. Riiiiiiiiiiight. 9_9
Who is a human being can be proven. Best to base our laws on that, than someone’s idea of a soul which may or may not exist and is about as tangible as Pam Anderson’s self-respect.
Kinda like the world view held by many in the proslavery crowd.
It basically boiled down to this…
Proslavery people tended to think of personhood being gained by having light skin.
Mathematically it would look like this Life + Color of Skin = Personhood.
Abolitionists tended to think of personhood being gained at all various shades of skin color. Mathematically would look like this Life = Personhood.
Quack.
Prochoice people tend to think of personhood being gained at birth. Mathematically it would look like this Life+Birth=Personhood.
Yes. You’ve mentioned this. Ad nauseam. What you haven’t mentioned is WHY.
I can tell you right now why any point of any human being’s life should be protected by law: because as a human being, as long as I don’t harm anyone else, MY right to live is protected by law. Extending that to every human being, regardless of how old they are, is called “equal rights and treatment under the law”, the right to live being considered “a basic human right”. See how that works? As I said before, we can prove that an entity is alive, and that the entity in question is a human being, by definition (regardless of what Doug says. “No, I don’t accept that.” is not a legitimate argument, Doug, and I’m not going to treat it like it is. If you have a problem with things as they are, take it up with the people who make the dictionaries), and so pro-life proposes to give equal protection under the law for every human being regardless of age or level of development. Birth has no magic to it that anyone can tell, so the idea of using that as some sort of benchmark for “ok to kill” vs. “not ok to kill” just seems insane.
Duck, you disagree because it doesn’t match your worldview. Scientific research has shown that when confronted with evidence that conflicts with one’s individual bias, one has two options revise bias and accept the new knowledge, or disregard the new evidence because it doesn’t reflect the bias.
So far you’ve disregarded all new evidence because it hasn’t reflected your bias. When we disagree with you and offer arguments and reasons as to why and ask you to clarify or quantify your position, (Lori spelled out an excellent list) you….. duck the questions. You seem to have a great deal of education regarding the development of worldviews, cultures, and even arguments…. but when it comes to the development of your own opinions and defending them, you deflect again to the discussion of the discussion. There is such a thing as being wrong, friend. If your position is indefensible…. find a new position! I’ve been on both sides of this debate, trust me, there is a right and wrong. When I was “pro-choice” I argued ideas and opinions, rights, world-views and philosophy. Then I found out what abortion meant. What it did to tiny defenseless human beings. I am no longer so ignorant and arrogant as to be able to ignore that fact. That fact, not opinion/argument/worldview/philosophy but cold hard BLOODY FACT, changed my position instantly.
The “abortion debate” is NOT about philosophy and opposing world-views as many wish it were. It is about real living flesh and blood human beings. It is about thousands of human beings dying violent preventable deaths everyday. It is about FLESH AND BLOOD! OUR flesh and blood. You want to talk about “community”. The most important members of any community are it’s children who will inherit it and continue it into it’s future. They guarantee it’s survival. This is about our future, our children, and death. Not philosophy or ideas. What a cop-out. >:(
There is such a thing as being wrong, friend.
There are some friends that have a harder time admitting they are wrong than others. Duck is definitely one of them. Blessed be, Duck.
iwaswrgn1.flv
xalisae says:
November 29, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Denise, even though you are not pro-life persay, since you don’t support the equal legal rights of gestating human beings, I appreciate that you had your tubes tied-a very responsible action.Do you have any idea why, when I suggest tubal ligation to pro-legal-abortionists, particularly those who have had prior abortions, get VERY irate when I suggest that if they actually care so much about REAL “reproductive freedom/justice/choice”, they should advocate for better access to tubal ligation surgery because THAT choice actually IS about only THEIR body, as opposed to abortion, which is making a choice for someone else’s body.
(Denise) Now HERE is an interesting question. Several years ago I read about a woman who was in court for trying to kill her son. She had already served 5 years in prison for actually killing a daughter. According to psychiatrists who examined her, she had a compulsion to have babies for the purpose of killing them! Thus, she deliberately conceived for the purpose of fulfilling a homicidal impulse. The shrinks believed there was little chance to change her through therapy. The judge — who did not have the option of giving her life imprisonment–offered a deal by which she would have a few years shaved off her sentence in exchange for undergoing sterilization. She agreed.
Two unlikely bedfellows — NOW and the Roman Catholic Church — objected to making sterilization part of a plea bargain. It seems macabrely funny to defend this monster’s “reproductive freedom” but defended it was.
Any sort of pressured sterilization brings up the specter of eugenics and the horrors of Nazi Germany. However, it’s possible to draw a reasonable line. The plea bargain cited above doesn’t mean we’re on our way to forcing sterilization on women en masse.
It does seem to me reasonable that after a woman completes her family, she would voluntarily undergo sterilization rather than take a chance on a pregnancy she will end with having an embryo or fetus ripped apart.
ninek says:
November 29, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Some people think we should be all soft and sweet to convert people to being pro-life. That works on some, but it won’t work on all. Sometimes, you just have to tell it like it is. I’m sorry to be harsh, but children are being murdered in their own mothers’ wombs every day on this planet, and it has to stop now.
(Denise) Ninek, how do we protect the embryo or fetus of a pregnant woman who dies early in the pregnancy?
It does seem to me reasonable that after a woman completes her family, she would voluntarily undergo sterilization rather than take a chance on a pregnancy she will end with having an embryo or fetus ripped apart.
Yeah. Same here. Especially when they’ve already had an abortion and bite my head off for suggesting they “SUBJECT (themselves) TO INVASIVE SURGERY!!!1!!!1111one”. Dur hur!
Lori: Sigh. Well I guess I’m asking too much of you. I don’t know how old you are, Duck, but I image you’re in your 20?s or 30?s. I have at least 20, probably more like 30 years on you. When I was in college, we studied philosophy, and I actually learned something from it. I have always understood why my beliefs had to be argued rationally. I keep forgetting you’re from the generation of complete relativism and that none of this means anything to you. To you there is no arguing to truth, there is no truth, there is only opinion. We who belong to the old Western tradition simply can’t have a conversation on the basis of logic with you.
Lori, you’re not asking too much of us. If there is a provable external truth to be referenced, that is one thing. If there are logical points to be made, fine. But there is no one necessary logic in the abortion debate. Some people value the woman’s freedom more than necessarily having every given pregnancy continued, and some people value the life of the unborn more than having abortion be a legal choice.
____
Doug, you completely missed everything I was trying to say. I expect you to be able to argue on rational grounds that someone’s liberty is more important than someone’s life. If you can, you might conceivably be able to persuade me. That is what logic and debate are for. You can’t just come here and say that “I think the woman’s liberty is more important, it’s my opinion and it’s all I have to say.” No one can argue on that basis. How in the world are two diametrically opposed opinions with no rational meeting place between then “everyone’s grounds”?
You’re already stamping things with your own valuation and opinion. There is no agreement that the unborn, especially earlier in gestation, are “someone” in the same way that born people are. This is part and parcel of the debate.
It all starts with the ideas and ideals we have. What really, are you saying except that you think the life of the unborn is more important than the pregnant woman’s liberty in this case? “Everybody’s grounds” are the valuations we all make, the opinions we hold, the desires for this or that outcome we have.
xalisae says:
November 30, 2011 at 9:50 am
It does seem to me reasonable that after a woman completes her family, she would voluntarily undergo sterilization rather than take a chance on a pregnancy she will end with having an embryo or fetus ripped apart. Yeah. Same here. Especially when they’ve already had an abortion and bite my head off for suggesting they “SUBJECT (themselves) TO INVASIVE SURGERY!!!1!!!1111one”. Dur hur!
(Denise) Or that they don’t “want to mutilate healthy tissue” when an abortion brutally rips to pieces a healthy embryo or fetus.
“It depends where one would say, “Okay, things really *have* gotten bad.” The price/scarcity of food, energy, water, etc., has already meant “Armageddon” for many, many people.”
Some Guy: …Right. You know– and you probably don’t– but you frequently talk about things you don’t understand.
Heh. Continue… I do appreciate the obvious thought and time you are putting into this.
____
Anyway, let’s start with something simple; there is no such thing as a “food scarcity”. That’s a flat out myth. There is enough food on the planet to feed everyone as food production has outstripped population growth for a heck of a long time and will do so into the foreseeable future. In fact, by 2030, it’s projected that there will be 3,050 kcal of food available per person, as when compared to 2,358 in the mid-1960’s (the chart on page 30). Furthermore, by 2030, there are expected to be 440M hungry people in the world, less than what it is now. There being poor and hungry people in the world has nothing to do with overpopulation but (1) mismanagement of resources and (2) the fact that developing countries use– and throw out– a disproportionate amount of food (I mean, the U.S. alone throws out about half its food every year). But, hey, it’s really overpopulation that’s the problem!
(Data is taken from here.)
Nothing there negates the fact that food is scarce for many people on earth. Could things be different if the world were different? Sure. If people, governments, etc. were different? Yeah, but that is not the way things are. Most of the gain in kilocalories “per capita” has come from increased supplies to countries that already had much higher levels than where people are malnourished and under-nourished. You saying “Well, things *could* be different” doesn’t change reality.
There is also the matter of price. Corn, for example, has tripled in price in just the last few years. Food is not going to be distributed around the world in a “perfect” manner in the first place, and the higher prices go, the less “equitable” distribution occurs. Hey, what if we had twice as much food in the US as we do? That doesn’t mean that hundreds of millions of people overseas wouldn’t still be starving.
____
Second of all, water scarcity is not caused by overpopulation. Water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of population increase in the last century, and, although there is no global water scarcity as such, an increasing number of regions are chronically short of water. According to FAO, water scarcity is a matter of (1) poverty and (2) failure of governments to adequately manage and maintain water systems.
You’re generalizing incorrectly there. Some places do have water problems due to the sheer numbers of people. It the Atlanta, Georgia area had 2 or 3 million people versus over 5 million, it would make a huge difference. (There, there’s pretty much a fixed water supply.) Are people using more water, per capita, worldwide? Well sure they are. That’s part of the demand equation, and again – you can say that “things could be different.” But hey, they are not. Access to water, especially clean and affordable water, is a huge and rapidly growing problem.
____
But, of course, I guess it’s easier just to scream about overpopulation than it is to actually address the issue. But, hey. Alarmism sells
I’m not screaming about overpopulation, nor being alarmist. Like I said before, “It depends where one would say, ‘Okay, things really *have* gotten bad.’ “ With resources in general, things are already bad for a lot of people, and it’s a function of demand and production, and the population definitely figures into the demand. China, India, Brazil, some of the Russian republics, etc., have literally billions of people who are only now getting into the “middle class” or at least starting to consume a good bit more than in the past. It’s driven the price of food, energy, raw materials up a lot. Even with no further world population gain, this is a really big deal, and it’s far from over.
___
And finally, I laughed at your “energy scarcity” comment. I’d be quite interested in knowing how you concluded that energy is “scarce” or that even “peak oil” has been reached or even how world energy production falling. I’m just dying to know.
I didn’t say world energy production is falling. Heck, I’m sure it’s still rising at this point. Oil, though, demonstrates increasing scarcity by having gone up 300 or 400%, even adjusted for inflation. Discoveries of oil peaked in 1955. Oil production per capita peaked in 1979, and we had vastly lower prices then. World oil production is still hanging on – it’s been pretty much constant for the past 6 years, but this is with much higher prices. Here’s a chart: http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-12-21/world-oil-production-looking-clues-what-may-be-ahead
US oil production peaked in 1971, and most of the rest of the world’s big fields are past their peak or even going rapidly downhill. Mexico’s Cantarell field, the North Sea, Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field, etc., are past peak even with stuff like salt water injection. We had $10 oil in 1986, and now we’ve got it at $100, and the higher prices justify some measures to maintain production that would have been seen as “too extreme” in the past, but even with them in place, world production is staying even, at best, not rising as it always had done in the past.
If crude oil goes to $200 or $1000, there will be additional supplies then worth producing. Being “past peak” doesn’t mean that there still won’t be “lots” of oil produced. But couple static or declining production with growing population and growing per-capita use, and you can see what the deal is. If gasoline was $10 per gallon, would you then say it was “scarce”? If it was $20 per gallon?
_____
What would have to occur for you to say “there are too many people on earth”?
Quite possibly some of these Doomsday Scenarios that said alarmists constantly predict coming true. So, please, besides ponying up these facts which show overpopulation to be the cause of said problems, do provide me with a reasonable time frame in which I can expect the world to go to hell in a hand basket via overpopulation. I want to mark it on my calendar, barring it’s not something like 500 years into the future.
Again, it would depend on how you define “being in hell in a handbasket.” It’s not like a certain amount of people mean there would then be zero resources, but it may mean that some people have none and that they cost vastly more than they do now.
I don’t predict “Doomsday” unless we do something really stupid on a nuclear basis, or unless something unforseen happens – that our effects on the world environment and ecology make for a sudden and dramatic “bad thing” occurring. No guarantees that those will take place.
Some people value the woman’s freedom more than necessarily having every given pregnancy continued, and some people value the life of the unborn more than having abortion be a legal choice.
I think this pretty much says it all. I mean, as a woman, I do enjoy my freedom, but my freedom is not, never has been, and never will be more important than the life of my child(ren). And you can’t tell me that gestating human beings are not “someone”-my children have been “someone”s since before they were born, and “terminating my pregnacy” would’ve killed the “someone” they were/are. Whether or not I would be willing to allow them the time it would take for me to get to know them as a “someone” does not change that they are and always have been a “someone”. My experience of the world does not change the facts and reality of the world. I can’t help but feel like anyone who would put their freedom before the life of their child is narcissistic to the point of psychopathy, to put it lightly.
Corn, for example, has tripled in price in just the last few years.
Yes…but WHY? Because Mr. Inconvenient Truth cast the tie-breaking vote mandating ethanol be put into gasoline. Why did he do that? Because he and many other congresspersons were stockholders of ethanol-producing companies. Ethanol doesn’t help the environment. Ethanol destroys sensitive engines (I’ve spoken to motorcyclists who have had to rebuild engines due to ethanol in the fuel). Ethanol kills people in 3rd world countries when corn and corn products become too expensive to be as readily and easily donated as they once were. Ethanol destroys the middle class by increasing the price of almost every food product here in the states you can imagine (corn feeds people. Corn also feeds animals-pigs, cows, sheep, etc. Meat prices go up). Ethanol kills other industries as well, like culinary and hospitality when food prices rise, making doing things like eating out become more and more expensive, to the point of becoming nearly prohibitively so. Combine that with fuel becoming more expensive, and the middle class crumbles. If the 99%ers are really so concerned with the rich getting richer, maybe they should go Occupy Al Gore’s mansion.
Clapping for Xalisae November 30, 2011 at 12:49 pm
:D You said it girl!! Woot!
And why the oil expense? Moratoriums on drilling, restrictions on drilling, prohibitions on where drilling is done, insistence that we BUY foreign oil (blood oil IMO) and have to pay to have it shipped here and all the taxes and fees required to do that has no bearing on expense/scarcity….. noooooo….. the oil is running out, thaaaat’s it…..*eye roll*
On a road trip a couple yrs ago I came across a gas station that had NO ETHANOL in it’s gas!!! That tank lasted me almost twice as long as any other tank with ethanol in it. Hrm, wonder why?
Lori,
Awesome, looking forward to it. :)
“In my philosophical view, that’s because all things gain their soul at birth.”
Xalisae: and yet WE are the “bible-thumpers”, “anti-science”, and “unintelligent” ones who base their opinions entirely on emotion and their own personal opinion. Riiiiiiiiiiight. 9_9
I don’t think Duck said anything about “bible-thumpers,” etc. Do you, X?
____
As I said before, we can prove that an entity is alive, and that the entity in question is a human being, by definition (regardless of what Doug says. “No, I don’t accept that.” is not a legitimate argument, Doug, and I’m not going to treat it like it is. If you have a problem with things as they are, take it up with the people who make the dictionaries)
Unless you have somebody actually contesting that the unborn in this argument are alive and human beings, then it’s a strawman argument on your part. That’s really not what the debate is, and that people don’t accept your frequent position that it is should be no surprise.
The people have a problem with “things as they are” are pro-lifers, not pro-choicers.
“Some people value the woman’s freedom more than necessarily having every given pregnancy continued, and some people value the life of the unborn more than having abortion be a legal choice.”
X: I think this pretty much says it all.
Well good; we agree on some things, anyway. ;)
___
I mean, as a woman, I do enjoy my freedom, but my freedom is not, never has been, and never will be more important than the life of my child(ren).
And pro-choicers are not asking you to think or act any differently. It’s up to you, and pro-choicers are fine with that.
____
And you can’t tell me that gestating human beings are not “someone”-my children have been “someone”s since before they were born, and “terminating my pregnancy” would’ve killed the “someone” they were/are. Whether or not I would be willing to allow them the time it would take for me to get to know them as a “someone” does not change that they are and always have been a “someone”.
Depends on how you define “someone.” Personally, I see it applying before birth, for most fetuses, but to say that a zygote is a “someone” or a “somebody” is stretching things to a ridiculous point. Granted – different people see things in different ways here.
____
My experience of the world does not change the facts and reality of the world. I can’t help but feel like anyone who would put their freedom before the life of their child is narcissistic to the point of psychopathy, to put it lightly.
You’re mixing up facts and the reality of the world with your own subjective feelings, i.e. “child” and your valuation.
“Corn, for example, has tripled in price in just the last few years.”
X: Yes…but WHY? Because Mr. Inconvenient Truth cast the tie-breaking vote mandating ethanol be put into gasoline. Why did he do that? Because he and many other congresspersons were stockholders of ethanol-producing companies.
Well, that is some of the reason, yeah. I don’t know if he really was a stockholder in those companies or not – seems like an obvious conflict of interest that would have been pointed out at the time – but it’s been political pork and political motivation, for the most part, that has been behind making ethanol from corn. If we had a crapload of sugar cane, it would work a lot better.
____
Ethanol doesn’t help the environment. Ethanol destroys sensitive engines (I’ve spoken to motorcyclists who have had to rebuild engines due to ethanol in the fuel). Ethanol kills people in 3rd world countries when corn and corn products become too expensive to be as readily and easily donated as they once were. Ethanol destroys the middle class by increasing the price of almost every food product here in the states you can imagine (corn feeds people. Corn also feeds animals-pigs, cows, sheep, etc. Meat prices go up).
Then we can say that population pressure is killing the middle class, too, since it drives up prices too. Agreed that ethanol is not that great a deal for the US, if it’s even a net positive at all. There’s debate about the energy return on energy investment, if it’s above zero or not…
____
Ethanol kills other industries as well, like culinary and hospitality when food prices rise, making doing things like eating out become more and more expensive, to the point of becoming nearly prohibitively so. Combine that with fuel becoming more expensive, and the middle class crumbles. If the 99%ers are really so concerned with the rich getting richer, maybe they should go Occupy Al Gore’s mansion.
You know, Gore did eventually reverse his position on ethanol. As for resource and food prices rising, that’s now the deal. World population is still growing fast, and we’ve also got a higher per-capita rate of significant resource-users all the time. The price pressure on many things is big and getting bigger.
Doug, I love your logical reasoning skills and your debating style.
TheChristianHippie: And why the oil expense? Moratoriums on drilling, restrictions on drilling, prohibitions on where drilling is done, insistence that we BUY foreign oil (blood oil IMO) and have to pay to have it shipped here and all the taxes and fees required to do that has no bearing on expense/scarcity….. noooooo….. the oil is running out, thaaaat’s it…..*eye roll*
Well, that’s a tiny part of things. US reserves that have drilling moratoriums are not all that big compared to world production and demand over the years. If there were no moratoriums, instead of getting 70% of our oil from other countries, what would it be? 69%? 65%? 60%? Our production would increase some, sure, but would not do much to reverse the decline in our production, which peaked 40 years ago.
The world uses well over 80 million barrels of oil a day. The US produces around 5.5 million barrels a day. Even a substantial increase in our production would not affect the world’s supply/demand equation all that much.
Observe the abortion advocates’ classic deflection tactic:
(Denise) Ninek, how do we protect the embryo or fetus of a pregnant woman who dies early in the pregnancy?
Here’s the answer: how do we protect the victims of murder? We stop deflecting with references to the unfortunate, but natural, demise of early term embryos, and pass laws that make elective abortion illegal.
So far, for example, we can’t protect the ectopic pregnancy’s embryo. That is completely unrelated to elective abortion, which is when someone interrupts the natural development of a human being with violent chemical or surgical means.
You can look in the mirror and lie to yourself all day long about not being an abortion advocate, but you comment just like one. You know what they say, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck….
When abortion advocates use the argument that some children never make it because they die naturally so therefore abortion is OK, I like to counter with: all of us will die naturally if left alone, so why don’t we release all the murderers and serial killers from jail? Sound good to you? Maybe we should set up murder clinics, so that murderers can have someone else help them kill their intended victim without having to inconvenience themselves?
Abortion advocacy is irrational but you can recover. Embrace life, and let the healing begin.
Ninek, abortion used to be illegal. I read an essay called “Confessions of an Abortionist” from a man who performed illegal abortions. He was a doctor in a small town. A lovely young woman came to him, extremely distressed. She still lived at home with her very conservative mother and brother. She was pregnant and unmarried. The doc asked why she didn’t just marry the father. Her reply was that he refused to marry her. She desperately wanted to end the pregnancy. He warned her against the ill effects of abortion. A few days later, he read of her suicide. He attended the funeral. Family members were in mourning but he was mad at them for their severe attitudes. He was mad at the expoitative lover. He was mad at the woman herself for telling him about it and dragging him into it.
However, he was haunted by the knowledge that, if he had terminated the pregnancy, this attractive young woman might have gone on to lead a normal life, albeit scarred and bruised.
He also knew that his refusal to abort had NOT led to the birth of a baby.
Am I for the above scenario? NO! I oppose all stigma against pregnant females regardless of circumstances. I favor delaying sexual activity or having sexual activity that can’t lead to pregnancy. I favor efforts to make abstinence easier. I favor efforts to popularize sexual activities that can’t lead to pregnancy. I favor a guaranteed annual income and a family allowance system. Finally, I favor forcing pregnant females seeking abortions to have to see photos of the unborn at the stage they are aborting and forcing them to know what the abortion will do.
However, when it comes down to it, if the girl or woman is unable to endure the sacrifices inherent in pregnancy, I want her to live rather than commit suicide or die at the hands of a butcher.
The measures I favor might do more to diminish abortion than making it illegal ever did!
The measure you suggest would poison an entire continent of people and will DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES OF THE PREGNANT MOTHERS!!!!
Denise: listen up and listen up good, I will never ever address you again on this or any other forum. Your suggestions are absolutely the same as Sanger and Hitler and you are on the wrong side of history. You have NO COMPASSION for pregant mothers and all you want is for them to be able to kill their children at will. Good bye.
Dear Readers, abortion advocates have been singing that song about maternal suicide since the late 1960’s. But here’s the thing: if anyone is so upset that they want to hurt themselves, then she or he needs help. If a pregnant woman is suicidal, she and her baby need help. Abortion advocates spend more time defending murder than trying to find solutions to the mental health problems of pregnant mothers in crisis. If you read this and you think that murdering someone else will solve your mental health problems, I urge you to get help. Many cities and counties offer free mental health services to people in crisis who can’t afford to pay private psychiatrists. There’s no need to keep suffering, help is out there.
A very good analysis which make me nervous. I think most of my link building methods are described here and they are going to die!!!
I like this plugin as well BUT, it will not let me choose a category when adding a link. Is this because I have not added subcategories?