Porn up, rape down.

What's your take on the argument that compares Pro-choice with Nazis in that one of first things legalized at the beginning of the horror of their rule was abortions, amongst other anti-family and anti-Christian legalization that occurred once they were in power and started seizing the assets of anybody who they could marginalize and deem unfit for society.

Not that I would advocate such a position for other Pro-lifers, but you tend to hear all kinds of crazy justifications for why people believe the same as you even though they shouldn't need to believe that the other side is evil in order to stay true to their own beliefs.

Doesn't the heart start pumping in the first trimester? ... Three months, shouldn't that be long enough for a decision to keep or get rid of the pregnancy? I would like abortions to be limited to the first trimester, not that I intend to change anyone's mind on the matter. And if you don't want the baby after three, give it up for adoption. Do you know how many couples are wishing to adopt a baby?

 

This morning my girlfriend told me that she had a pregnancy dream.

"Aw," I said.
She says that the dream was terrible: a great deal of blood and no baby.

 

The difference? People of Pro-Life are against abortions done by all the kind of human races. The Nazi''s were only against the abortions if you were an Aryan.

The Nazis did sterilize the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally ill in the 40's as well. Some time later, the Government of Sweden (or Norway) did the same thing only to the mentally ill.

Anti-family? The Nazis thought that the family values were very important. So the introduced Mother''s Day. So I do not agree with this.

Anti-Religion? Only if you were a Jew or Catholic.

 

Personally I think the Nazis did plenty of good things for Germany policy-wise, granted some of their other decisions were horrific, but they got a lot of Germans into jobs. Chalking up all policies Nazis made as evil solely because they were made by Nazis is a pretty dumb argument if you ask me, but then again so are many arguments made by Pro-lifers. As a side note I always wonder what would have happened if Hitler hadn't had committed to the Final Solution, done things like the Night of the Long Knives, been such a hate-monger or practically caused of WWII? Would he have been seen as a good(ish) leader - and by that I mean solely for his economic policies?

As for abortion, I believe people should have the choice, and it's ridiculous to outlaw it. If a person is sensible enough to realise they're not responsible enough to have a baby, they should be allowed the right to get rid of it. I think giving it up for adoption is always the better option though. As for children with special needs, I think people should have the option to abort them pretty late. I don't think I'd be able to handle a severely special needs child, as selfish as that sounds, and that abortion would for me be the option in such a case.

 

With current population estimates, no, our population on this planet is not an issue. With current consumption estimates, yes, our population is an issue.
Take San Francisco as an example (America, the land of spare tires);
San Francisco currently has a population over 20 million. They pump water from pretty far off places to support the lives of their people. If they only used the water within aquifers around the San Fran area (and with reasonable consumption levels), the city's population maximum would be 3 million people. Bear in mind that this city already staggers water use considerably, but it's still 50 gallons per person, per day.
Sure, desalination technology is technically viable, but it's pretty expensive the way it's currently done. Ironically, the places most in need of these desalination plants are where it's most expensive to do it-and there's very little money there. While we technically have an unlimited supply of water on the planet, as soon as all of the fresh water is gone from landmasses we'll run into really expensive drinking water all over the planet, due to the volume of water needed in relation to how much can physically be processed at any given time. Water is already more expensive than oil, and that basically fuels our global industry. There are alternatives to oil based industry, though. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a water alternative, so as soon as that runs out, it will be the single most valuable commodity on the planet and everyone who isn't rich will die. In effect, population control. But, what's the point when all of the plebs are dead and can no longer serve you?

Yes, but there is no blood at all within the fetus within the first few weeks. In fact, at that point the child isn't even a fetus, it's an aggregation of cells. What's being argued is that as soon as the egg is fertilized, it's a person, and should have all the rights a person naturally would under our constitution, meaning it's illegal to remove them while they're very slightly, technically, a parasite. If that person turns out to be gay, that's another story, but...

It's the woman's choice. A lot can happen within the time after the first trimester. Jobs can be lost. Complications can arise where carrying to term would be lethal. People are actually allowed to decide not to adopt your kids (provided they didn't already legally agree and were just saying "Oh, yeah, we'll totally raise your love-child, and we'll definitely fill out the required paperwork on our end" {though with a good lawyer, anything is possible}), and not all foster parents are shining paragons of caring. Sometimes, in particular cases of surrogacy (where the mother is barren and the man's semen is used to fetilize the surrogate's egg), the parents can back out and leave the surrogate with the child, due to it being her biological offspring. I'm not saying the kid should be aborted, but there needs to be more stuff figured out in the logistics of carrying and bearing children, as well as raising families, before we become so bold we set legal limits on when it is or isn't right for a woman to decide she wants to have a baby. Honestly, we could sweep all of this under the table if not so many people were hooked up on contraception in general.

Really, sex is pretty healthy for people. It counts as exercise, and orgasm releases endorphins which are proven to reduce stress, blood pressure, as well as headaches. I don't think limits should be in place to prevent people from getting exercise that allows for instant gratification. Well, ideally not "instant." I think you know what I mean.
The irony is that sex can cure a headache, and so many people will opt out due to having one...though it could be due to how instant the other person's gratification was the last time.

 

You're thinking with the same narrow focus as everyone always does who worries about this issue. Yes, it's true that the exact conditions that currently provide for San Franciscans can't be replicated for everyone in the world. But so what? Do we really need to provide 50 gallons of fresh water per person per day? No.

 

I literally used one of the worst possible examples of water use on the planet. However, the highest US average (2500 cubed meters) is up to four times the lowest average use in a water-poor country (600 cubed meters), which is actually just below China (700 cubed meters), though China's population is three times ours...so it almost evens out. It's not just what we drink, it's water that goes into all of the goods we use, as well as for hygiene and housekeeping. In wealthy countries, it can be equivalent to each person using all of the water in an olympic size swimming pool for themselves each year. Granted, that's just an average. There are obviously people using more and less than that in any given country.
8 countries account for 50% of all of the fresh water used on the planet. Bottled water in plastic accounts for a great deal more than just the contents. The bottle itself takes 7 liters to make, and it might only be filled with 12-16 ounces. Paper takes 10 liters per 8" by 11" sheet. Have Italian leather shoes, or know anyone who does? A decent pair's constituents total up to about 8,000 liters of used water...I unfortunately own a pair.
I'm using far from a limited scope. Water usage doubles globally every 20 years, which is much faster than actual population growth. Add on to that interesting tidbit that only .26% of all water is technically usable at any one time (about 93 million cubic meters), and you'll see why the current average global usage is a problem while also seeing how the projected future use would be much worse. You might argue that 2.5% of all water on earth is fresh, and can therefore be used-89.6% of that is frozen in Antarctica. If you've priced anything made from melted antarctic ice, you'll know it's really expensive, like this beer. The rest of what we can't immediately use is in the clouds, the ground, or the north pole. By the way, what we can immediately use is about .054% of what's actually available to humans, and that's split among all life on the planet due to the lack of things with drills and rain collectors.
EDIT: redundant information.

 

I wasn't talking about how much of the earth's surface we cover. I was talking about how much life it can support. Birth rates may decline with modernization, but its consumption rates continue to skyrocket. So either we can continue to grow, and have shortages of everything, or we can control and decrease our populations.

Its not a narrow-minded view, we can't magic food, oil, and clean water out of thin air. There is a finite amount of resources in the world. Technology can only stretch them so far.

 

O yay! We can grow meat in vats! Yum. Now I'm totally cool with exponential population growth. Typical solution from someone who lives in London.

Nature removes excess.

Forgetting about the chaos of educating and coercing each new, more numerous generation, or the volitile instability of a population which over-reaches its food supplies, Natural Law still has an ace up its sleave: Viral mutation.

I'm sorry, I really like your species and everything, but we're all doomed. Have a nice day

 

Just imagine if the Spanish flu hit back in the 1400's instead if the black death. Due to it having a more negative reaction the stronger a person's immune system was, every human on earth may have died. As the immune system is strongest in young adults, and the average person died slightly before what is now considered "middle age," humans might've been wiped off the map. Yes, I read the first part of my response on Cracked.

 

Mathematically, the next version of superflu is going to be much more tricksy and spread clean around the world within a few days.

Personally, I'd prefer to go extinct with a bang rather than a whimper, but you can't appeal against natural law.

 

Nothing in natural law against a massive comet. Now, I've gone through many comet scenarios on an impact scale calculator, and by far my favorite is simulating a pure osmium asteroid impact. Osmium is the densest known metal in the universe (22600 kg/m^3), and coincidentally the richest source is out in space. Now, the likelihood of a comet this size striking earth (8,000 miles) is pretty low. Being made entirely out of osmium? Even lower. Still, complete and total annihilation, as in a brand new asteroid belt between Mars and Venus. However, far in excess of what's necessary to kill everything on the planet.
A considerably smaller and less dense comet (1,000 miles in diameter, made of iron) , while traveling a bit faster (70 km/s, 19 m/s faster than the giant osmium death star), would melt 34.61% of the entire surface. Here are the results of the calculation.
Now, something like this would be most likely to happen before Earth was a planet. Maybe that's how the core got here. I'm no expert in planetary aggregation, so whatever.
I may be in a position to survive the impact, though my position almost exactly opposite of where the comet hits on Earth would end up nearly killing me anyway. I'd have 3rd degree burns over most of my body (due to still being in the fireball despite being about 12,000 miles away), and I'd be experiencing a 15.3 scale earthquake, which is about 30 times stronger than the quake possibly experienced after that one famous asteroid is estimated to have hit earth about 65 million years ago. You know, the one that made it possible for Mammals to become so very, very awesome.

 

Everyone on this forum is clearly an idiot! Why does everyone think I'm an idiot for posting here?

 

Somewhere I found this humorous pic that said, "Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics, Even if you win, you are still an idiot." -- And yeah, I know that this applies to me as well.

 

Xyle's post sums it up.
Honestly, the way you "summarized" those three points, mine still makes sense because we can't feasibly manufacture water, and the need for water is expected to go up faster than we can deal with it. We'll see vast increases in the price of water a lot more quickly than when oil finally peaks, and we're not actually running out of it in volume; it's just getting spread thinner every year.
As for food, we're already farming about 80% of the land that can actually be cultivated. If requirements for food increase as expected, by 2030 we'll have to somehow meet a demand 50% greater than what can be produced.
The population thing seems really silly, though. Populations are reducing in growth with successful modernization. Some places (China) are so modernized that in a few years there'll be no way to reproduce simply because there won't be enough women to meet demand for a wife.

 

Gosh, you're right. If we're wasting this much water now, imagine how much more we'll be wasting in the future! Because everyone knows that techonological improvements always lead to less efficient use of resources. That's why the amount of food produced per hectare of farmable land has fallen so drastically in recent years. And desalination plants are only going to make things worse! Oh no!

 

The estimates are with efficiency increases calculated in, not stagnation. Admittedly we can't know the future, and we might have an explosion of efficiency. Do you also ignore climate change because it's not such a big deal right now? It's already throwing off our water and in effect our agriculture. Notice how portions are getting smaller and more expensive? It's not just a ploy to make you lose weight or simply to make more money, there's actually demand increasing faster than supply and someone has to profit off of it.

 

Here's something I know about the future - if water becomes a scarce resource, we're going to stop using 8000 litres of it at a time to make a single pair of shoes.

So, are you just spewing random facts without thinking about the issue, or are you an idiot? Either way, you're an idiot.

 

You missed my point entirely, Smuel, I never said that at all.

You are clearly ignorant of the basic tenants of ecology and population dynamics, English, if you think that mega-cities with cloned-spam are a viable solution. Although I can appreciate that life is London is nearly there anyway.

I said Nature Removes Excess. Forgetting about your meat-vats for a moment, 10 000 000 000 humans are an excellent petrie dish for disease, especially when 2/3 of them are malnourished.

Also, in an island full of deer, when the grazing is exhausted, the population doesn't merely return to a sustainable level, it can easily crash down to zero, because there's a period during which the island is full of starving, diseased deer and no food.

Finally, it's not about the number of humans, nor the available energy in the universe, it's about the life-support systems of the spaceship Earth. Humans are passengers, other species like earthworms and bees are the crew which keep the ship running, making food and air for us. What you're proposing, continuing to expand exponentially because we always have is the equivalent of replacing a ship's crew entirely with rats which then eat the hull.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.