I hope you won’t be so flip towards a sorrowful woman who has a miscarriage during the early stages of pregnancy. To that woman, she was carrying life. So I think there isn’t a one size fits all way of viewing this topic.
Wow. That's crazy. But, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. When you politicize a woman's uterus, anything is possible.
The brain is fully developed till 25. Hence, out of the womb the father should have the right to an abortion too until that age. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I understand, but my post was strictly from the perspective that a woman's rights are being violated by a bunch of guys. But being in total agreement with you on a woman's emotional investment in pregnancy, the argument shifts that in view of the maternal instincts, a woman must have a very good reason in order to feel a necessity for having an abortion. I am sure no woman wants to abort, but sometimes circumstances demand such action. That circumstance can only be evaluated by the women herself.
So, at what age does a fetus become a citizen? This may be very pertinent to the law that a person born in the US is a US citizen. What about an unborn "person"? Automatic citizenship? What about conception in the US? Automatic citizenship?
Outlawing abortion does not increase the population growth? The rest of the "critical importance" is just blowing in the wind. Any long range plans for population control will involve less births or more deaths, by any means. It's an inescapable dilemma.
So much this. You hit the nail on the head. I have a few friends who have had abortions, and it was a very difficult decision. I don't like how some politicians infer that it's a hasty decision that a woman makes, or worse, that it's malicious. It's anything but. As a woman, it's really disheartening that in our modern moral society, we still have male politicians deciding what is best for us.
Here is something from my thought bubble collection In the womb Full human rights "Honey I am pregnant" (6 weeks) Next day "We are gifting our house to our fetus "(tax dodge reasons) Later miscarriage, no will House taken for unpaid various taxes and assorted bills (power and water) Family had been paying rent to fetus bank account,w had not been declared as income Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not much different to "we are gifting our house to our one month old" - and then having the child die. (Other than better odds with the 1 month old)
as/re choose: I would assume , YES (this ain't a topic which we discuss) One is a rabid yellow dog democrat, and claims that he does not want children. The other is married to a native american from Ecuador, has 2 daughters, and has built a house in the oriente of Ecuador. He works here as a science teacher, and summers in Ecuador. ........... as/re what prompted me to say that: now, we're getting into psychology probably-------1/2 in jest? (I'm conflicted on the subject)
The ignorance of the exponential function does not lie with scientists. It lies with the politicians. Politicians speak of growth factors of 3 or 4 percent rates and if the growth rate falls below that we are doing something wrong. This is the most misguided and ignorant perspective possible. How nice, we can increase our population to fill those available job openings. More dangerous words were never spoken. Example; "a 3 % percent growth rate in jobs to acommodate a 3% percent growth in population" sounds innocent, benign even, but the consequences in the secondary effects of such growth rates, would be disasterous. A 3% percent growth rate of anything, including all systems which have only a remote relationship with anything that grows at a rate of 3 % would mean that every 23 years everything would double in size. Every 23 years we would need to double bathroom facilities, sewer treatment plants, energy consumption, food consumption requiring doubling in food production, and so forth, a true domino effect which could collapse the earth's ability to sustain that much onslaught on its flexible but delicate balance under the sudden weight placed on its natural resources. All an inevitable result of just 3% percent growth rate in population (and everything else that comes with it) Now, consider the implications of this statement This is a dangerous statement, because it is only partly true. It completely ignores the secondary impact on the environment when its total population increases at a rate of just 3% Fortunately we are sitting at 1.07 % increase in birth rate which delays all this into a later future, but then it must stop. The total effects that mankind has on the earth's limited environment will inevitably be exponentially felt and mathematically corrected by nature itself. Natural selection often involves some kind of natural disaster on a global scale.
So what was ther reply when you suggested that they thank ther mother for not having the abortion.??? Do they know you'r position on a womans right to choose.???
Unfortunately they are correct. Our current economic and financial systems rely on constant growth for stability. Stop growing and our economy collapses.
Or, so, at least believes the federal reserve bank. I wonder: Are they correct? Are they playing the game with a different agenda than I would have?