Definitely for a little while, I’m sure.
Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Citation needed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,909
it would never work, there would be an utter outcry. that said if you take all emotion out of it and use cold hard logic. There would be a calculation which could be done to work out the largest sustainable population for each country,. once that number was worked out then imo it is hard to argue against population control from a purely scientific view .... I wouldn't make it IQ tested myself . but I would absolutely support a ban on people having more than 2 children with the logic that some people would have less..... then once the population dropped in that country it could be relaxed for those who really wanted more and who could support them.
imo the only argument against this are emotional ones and not logical ones. just my 2p and I don't think it will happen. we will destroy our planet such that billions will die before we take away people's "rights".
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Well, your near certainty is misplaced, nothing like that has been tried; yet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,909
I think India considered it in the 1960s for people with large families.to try to stop people from excessive.breeding who could not support their family. again I think it's hard to argue against if all you care about is saving the planet but there would be riots if they implemented it.
I did say something similar.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I have yet to see a worthwhile omelette made without the breaking of some eggs. Artists have solely contributed to so called aesthetics, whilst nice on eye and ear, they were and are hardly compulsory for mankind's survival. As for the worth of scientists, past and present, good works versus bad, it's probably near fifty fifty. Eugenics would take care of seeing an abundance of them.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
No, of course it isn’t…Not remotely similar, put that damned spade down...
No, it really isn't. You still haven't provided that citation though.
I've thought about this for many many years and finally came to my conclusion a few years ago
I was born catholic, I may not go to church anymore but I'm a firm believer in God and I pray to him in my own way. So while I am essentially pro-life I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility and liberty and cannot abide by banning anything within reason. In the end, God gave us freedom and we have to navigate through this life by choosing our path
So how do I marry those two sides of the same coin? Here in the UK we have roughly 250,000 abortions every year (as far as the data can tell us) quarter of a million babies are killed every year. That's simply too much and needs to be lowered drastically. I understand abortions sometimes need to happen, and in my eyes, they can only really be 3 reasonable reasons for doing so. Incest, rape and where the disability of a child is so bad it's enough for quality of life to be severely affected. Of course if the woman wishes to keep the child in those circumstances then it's up to her.
Because I was born catholic I also have to think for me when does life start? Now the standard answer for God-fearing types is at the moment of conception. I can't agree with that, it's just a ball of cells, I have to think when does consciousness start? And I cannot think it can start until the brain develops and the neurons start to fire, which is about week 6 or 7. For me this is when life begins and it begins to be a real human being. In the end, 24 weeks is simply far too old, it's a fully developed baby by that point, and aborting that is straight-up murder and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that. In the end I have to think on how to bring those numbers down and being a person of faith means i'd like to be 0, It's obvious that it will never happen and I have to compromise in my head
So i would like to see the age limit brought down to 7 weeks except in the cases of rape, incest or disability which will remain at 24 weeks. And then have a real campaign nationwide and in schools on birth control for both men and women. Remove the stigma of using it and make it free from certain places like GP's, Hospitals or Chemists. Make it socially unacceptable for men to refuse to use it (i know that in some parts of society, in particular the black community, that using a condom apparently makes you less of a man) Just keep hammering that message home. And hopefully we can get those numbers down, even if it's only half, i'd be happier.
I was born catholic, I may not go to church anymore but I'm a firm believer in God and I pray to him in my own way. So while I am essentially pro-life I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility and liberty and cannot abide by banning anything within reason. In the end, God gave us freedom and we have to navigate through this life by choosing our path
So how do I marry those two sides of the same coin? Here in the UK we have roughly 250,000 abortions every year (as far as the data can tell us) quarter of a million babies are killed every year. That's simply too much and needs to be lowered drastically. I understand abortions sometimes need to happen, and in my eyes, they can only really be 3 reasonable reasons for doing so. Incest, rape and where the disability of a child is so bad it's enough for quality of life to be severely affected. Of course if the woman wishes to keep the child in those circumstances then it's up to her.
Because I was born catholic I also have to think for me when does life start? Now the standard answer for God-fearing types is at the moment of conception. I can't agree with that, it's just a ball of cells, I have to think when does consciousness start? And I cannot think it can start until the brain develops and the neurons start to fire, which is about week 6 or 7. For me this is when life begins and it begins to be a real human being. In the end, 24 weeks is simply far too old, it's a fully developed baby by that point, and aborting that is straight-up murder and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that. In the end I have to think on how to bring those numbers down and being a person of faith means i'd like to be 0, It's obvious that it will never happen and I have to compromise in my head
So i would like to see the age limit brought down to 7 weeks except in the cases of rape, incest or disability which will remain at 24 weeks. And then have a real campaign nationwide and in schools on birth control for both men and women. Remove the stigma of using it and make it free from certain places like GP's, Hospitals or Chemists. Make it socially unacceptable for men to refuse to use it (i know that in some parts of society, in particular the black community, that using a condom apparently makes you less of a man) Just keep hammering that message home. And hopefully we can get those numbers down, even if it's only half, i'd be happier.
I mean, he’s literally mentioned eugenics.
Mass sterilisation and IQ/genetic means testing with the goal of depopulation.
It doesn’t really need a citation, does it?
Yup, because its nothing like what you're hinting towards.
Sure it isn’t. Not even remotely similar.
Sure it isn’t. Not even remotely similar.
Not in the slightest.
I wish the media wouldn't make statements that are incorrect.
So far I've seen a newspaper and a tv news station state that the US as banned abortion. This isn't a true statement.
I also wish that those that want abortion wouldn't casually bring in to the conversation disabled people as a reason for abortion.
So far I've seen a newspaper and a tv news station state that the US as banned abortion. This isn't a true statement.
I also wish that those that want abortion wouldn't casually bring in to the conversation disabled people as a reason for abortion.
Why not? Surely preventing someone from ever having to suffer through a debilitating condition is quite a noble thing? It's not like they're killing a disabled person, they're stopping someone ever having to live with a condition.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
I agree with most of what you say except the 7 weeks thing. While the brain has started to develop, brain activity isn't present until the 13th/14th week, basically the end of the first trimester, start of the 2nd. At this point, there's a heart beat, many organs are functional, lungs are starting to develop, limbs are formed, the baby even starts to suck its own thumbs.
Yup, people get very sensitive though as soon as certain labels are used, then sometimes logic can go out of the window. In this case "eugenics".
I guess religious views on inherited disability range from 'must have been evil in a past life" through to "god works in mysterious ways" etc.. but generally religious people opposed to abortion aren't interested in making an exception for a mother finding out their kid is likely going to be born with say Downs' Syndrome for example.
Once you've got a Eugenics lable then some otherwise supposedly pro-choice people also buy into mindlessly inconsistent arguments like: "If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis..." "congratulations you killed Beethoven".
The argument that killing disabled foetuses could kill some great scientists/artists applies just as easily to killing able-bodied foetuses too - it's just a straight-up anti-abortion argument.
The whole point of pro-choice is that it's the woman's decision/choice, if a woman finds out her baby is likely to be seriously disabled and she doesn't want to deal with that then that's up to her, it's just as valid, if not more so as a reason to choose to have an abortion as things like "not right for my career right now".
Last edited:
You've got your line in the sand and a reason to support it. Makes sense to me.