NYC schools dispensing morning-after pill

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

"Ya know in the 1880's most of these kids would have already been married and havin kids by 15-16..... "

 

That's not true.

 

However just 20 years earlier they could have legally owned slaves.

 

Many pro-lifers see parallels between the 1857 case of Dredd Scott v. Sandford and the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade - arguing that both decisions essentially denied the personhood of a category of human beings.

 

Pro-abortionists argue that it's fallacious to compare fully formed human slaves with fetuses. It's a morally perilous question... at what point exactly is a human being entitled to protection under the law? Today mothers decide, just as slave owners decided back in those days. If the mother kills the developing life the day after conception, it's hard to see that as a human being.... but 3 months later? 6 months later?

 

Some survive abortion... should they be entitled to constitutional protection?

(BHO voted no BTW)

 

This woman gave birth... in the same hospital in which she survived an attempt on her life when she herself survived after her mother aborted her at 6 months:

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

[Peregrinator]

The truth is the US is overpopulated already

 

Why do you think that? Population density in the U.S. is low (84 per sq. mile) especially compared to countries in Western Europe (for example, the U.S. has about 1/10 the population density of Belgium, 1/40 that of Malta).

[moosetracker]

The world IS over populated.. Period..

 

If we were another form of animal it would be open season on us all the time.

 

Life is not about how many people you can cram into every square foot of land. It is also about being able to feed the masses, while also being able to keep a good balance of other things needed to keep this planet earth healthy enough to continue to substain life..

 

We do not need to become China, where then government starts enforcing only one child per family sanctions..

 

[BSA24]

>> The truth is the US is overpopulated already

 

> Why do you think that?

 

Because I have to sit in traffic. We need 90% fewer people so I can drive to work in the morning. Besides, your statistic includes huge uninhabitable tracts of land in the midwest and west where almost no one lives.

 

> We do not need to become China, where then government starts enforcing only one child per family sanctions.

 

Right. We need to start enforcing that RIGHT NOW, before we become like China. Why are Americans still making so many babies? We need to stop it. Human population levels are the source of almost all of humanity's biggest problems.

 

Lower our population levels by 90%, and pollution, global warming, oil consumption, traffic congestion, easily obtainable land, agriculture, and just about everything else gets better.

 

Nothing gets better with more people. Everything gets better with fewer.

(This message has been edited by bsa24)

[Peregrinator]

The world IS over populated.. Period..

 

According to what standard? There are many areas of the world that are severely underpopulated.

 

What do you think the proper population density is?

 

If we were another form of animal it would be open season on us all the time.

 

But we're not, so this is simply a non sequitur.

 

Life is not about how many people you can cram into every square foot of land. It is also about being able to feed the masses, while also being able to keep a good balance of other things needed to keep this planet earth healthy enough to continue to substain life..

 

It's not overpopulation that is causing famines ... usually these are caused by war. Starving populations are used as pawns by kleptocracies and belligerent governments.

 

We do not need to become China, where then government starts enforcing only one child per family sanctions..

 

And China is in fact facing very grave problems because of their one-child-per-family policy.

 

In some countries of Western Europe (with far greater population density than the United States or most African countries), having children is incentivized.

[moosetracker]

When everyone in the world is well fed, healthy and having a productive life (solve poverty and misery), come back and ask me again.. When you get that accomplished, you will then live the debate.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Peregrinator]

When everyone in the world is well fed, healthy and having a productive life

 

That will never happen no matter what the world's population is.

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

Maybe these disciples of Ehrlich are unfamiliar with Simon - maybe Ehrlich too.

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa364.pdf

 

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

[moosetracker]

Well until you can proove that this world can feed, shelter and care for the people we currently have. I am happy with families using family planning methods, over the old biblical "Go forth and multiply."

 

We have no need to multiply anymore, so we know longer need couples having 9 or 10 children apiece.

[Sentinel947]

"We have no need to multiply anymore, so we know longer need couples having 9 or 10 children apiece."

 

In the Western world we do not. In places like India, where the family still means something, parents expect their children to take care of them when they get old. Therefore, in Indian families it's highly beneficial to have lots of kids. It spreads the cost of taking care of mom and pop when they get old.

 

In the west obviously ,with our average of 2.5 kids. I hardly consider having 2-3 kids to be over doing it. In Europe birth rates are at the lowest in the past century. Birth rates are dropping across the Western World, and are expanding in the Middle East and India.

 

Part of the reason for the Arab spring has been the explosion of population in Middle Eastern Nations. These jobless, frustrated youth have taken to the streets to get better conditions. And unlike in the past, Middle Eastern Governments tax coffers can't bribe off all the people who are frustrated, jobless and homeless.

[Peregrinator]

If there is a risk of underpopulation, if the birth rate is too low to sustain the current population level, then yes, there is a need for couples to have more children.

 

In my own family my brothers have one child between the two of them. So the way I see it is that my wife and I (four children) are just picking up their slack.

[moosetracker]

 

If there is a risk of underpopulation, if the birth rate is too low to sustain the current population level, then yes, there is a need for couples to have more children.

 

 

Having 4 children is fine, as we are not China, so have no limits. There are people who have more children and others who have no children. But, why do you feel we have to sustain the current population level? Is our current population level required for our survival? Are countries considered superpowers only if they maintain a certain population level?

 

Are you talking about race in maintaining population, such as soon the whites will not be the majority for America, so if we don't increase the birth of white babies, we at least need to maintain the birth level of white babies?

 

Seriously family planning is just fine.. Like others said, it includes alot of education so that hopefully we can encourage birth control and discourge the need for abortions. If education on ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and scientific advances in contraceptive methods reach a point that abortions are unheard of.. I would be good with that.

 

[packsaddle]

In one view there is no such thing as 'overpopulation', merely more than can be supported in one manner or another. In an other view 'overpopulation' is defined against some estimate of 'carrying capacity'. It's too bad, but I suppose inevitable, that these concepts get wound into political arguments.

 

There are plenty of articles written in support of the contention that under the concept of 'sustainability', the world and the USA in particular are both 'overpopulated'. These usually base those claims on what the world and the USA could sustain if fed solely from solar energy. This argument makes the accurate point that the current populations are supplemented by (and therefore are in excess of what they would have been) fossil fuels of various kinds, mostly oil and natural gas.

The alternative argument claims that because we DO have such energy supplements available, we are NOT overpopulated.

 

This whole argument harkens back to the terribly WRONG predictions made by many persons. But in my lifetime the one I remember most notably was by Paul Ehrlich in his book 'The Population Bomb'. His logic is not all that bad. OTOH, his prediction of widespread famine, disease, and worldwide turmoil by 1984...was obviously not at all accurate. He completely failed to foresee the 'green revolution' technologies (which are mostly driven by fossil fuels as noted earlier). I have an extensive list of these sorts of 'doomsday' predictions that I ridicule in my classes. Their history is not only fun but it's also instructive to understand that nearly all of the predictions of what is going to happen in the future, in retrospect, are laughably wrong. Good thing too, or else we'd be pretty miserable right now, or else dead, if those predictions had been correct.

This includes predictions, for example, ranging from the stupid prediction by Ehrilch to the stupid prediction of 'the rapture' from Revelation.

Of course on 21 December 2012 all of this will be moot as the world comes to its final end. LOL. I can hardly wait...the suspense is terrible...I hope it will last.

 

It's one more reason, I suppose, neither to worry much about the outcome of the election...nor to beat each other up in threads like this one.

[Peregrinator]

But, why do you feel we have to sustain the current population level?

 

Because it is impossible to support an aging population without it ... I think the only reason the US is able to do so is through immigration.

 

Like others said, it includes alot of education so that hopefully we can encourage birth control and discourge the need for abortions.

 

Encouraging birth control leads to abortion. Not to mention the fact that hormonal birth control can cause abortion.

[packsaddle]

There is nothing 'natural' about young people sustaining the elderly. The 'natural' way is for old people to sustain themselves until they can't anymore. And then they die. There is no justification, outside of empathy or charity, for saddling the young with handouts to a bunch of old coots who didn't prepare for their own old age. There especially is no reason for young people to provide support to the elderly if the elderly HAVE prepared for their old age and have the means to take care of themselves.

In THAT case, it is idiotic to put that burden on young people.

 

Edit: someone suggested that I was 'throwing grandma under the bus' or some such thing. No, I'm not throwing her under the bus. I saying that grandma needs to be prepared to avoid that bus on her own. But if she isn't able to avoid it, THAT outcome is between her and the bus.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)