Sorry to hear that you have contributed to global overpopulation. Some day, having more than replacement may be illegal. How will you like having your reproductive choices limited when that happens?
You've bought into a myth. The earth is nowhere close to overpopulated. Those that see themselves as our masters hoard the majority of the worlds land, resources and wealth for themselves while telling us that we are too many. Its a scam. The reality is that humans are the greatest resource, being necessary to tame the land and build, but we are growing to many for them to maintain control. The earth does have a limit that scales with technology and efficiency, but that limit is far greater than the elite propagandize. They want us limited to controllable numbers so they can have the world for themselves.
Regurgitating discredited and debunked theist fear mongering canards again because you have no valid reasonable and sound arguments whatsoever?
THERE IT IS FOLKS !!!!! When a women "chooses" to have irresponsible sex resulting in human life there is always the option to "KILL" the unborn.
Where I live there is plenty of space. Maybe North Korea will nuke the coasts then your fear of overpopulation won't be an issue. I'm sure there will still be the" death culture" that will abort for convenience.
YES! YOU FINALLY got something right !!! Yeah for you! You seem embarrassed that I caught you out....don't be, all Anti-Choicers end up with the "she should've kept her legs together" crap eventually.....afterall, it IS about punishing women and for Anti-Choicers that's what it always has been....it just takes you all a while to admit it
Yes, abort for convenience.....is there another reason for abortion or do you just like that asinine phrase, "abortion for convenience". What can't you understand about how all abortions are for convenience...?????
Abortion in the rare case to save the life of the mother is an urgent medical procedure. It's only goal is to save a life. When a fireman enters a burning building, he sometimes has to make choices.....which life am I most likely to save? It is not a question of "convenience". He takes the necessary steps to hold life sacred and save what he can. I just took the necessary step to explain a simple truth to you even though the "culture of death" may have blinded you.
Every time these people begin these rants it always ends up showing one very clear and important thing which defines who they are at the core. Every single one of them feel their opinion is so important that perfect strangers must live their lives based upon it. I feel embarrassed for them and disgusted at the ego size...they are unworthy of being a part of modern humanity.
Yes, abort for convenience.....is there another reason for abortion or do you just like that asinine phrase, "abortion for convenience". What can't you understand about how all abortions are for convenience...????? Ya, it IS convenient not to die being pregnant or giving birth.... It is convenient to not have a kid you can't afford or don't want.... I have no idea what a fireman has to do with women having the exact same rights as everyone else....(and neither do you )
What a pile. There are too many ppl on the planet, as evidenced by the fact that we are constantly clearing forests to make room for more housing. Clearing forests contributes to harming the environment. Fewer trees means less oxygen. More people contributes to climate change etc etc.
The trees are primarily being cleared for farmland for more food while roughly half the food grown in the world rots in storage waiting for people to buy it who cant afford it. Theres plenty of arible land perfect for farmland sitting undisturbed in government sactuaries, carbon offset zones and private, elite nature preserves while we clearcut rainforest for one season of crops and turn it into desert. Trees cleared for housing is negligeable by comparison- houses with trees on the property are more desireable and lumber trees are most commonly replaced with sapplings for future lumber trees. Urban expansion only clearcuts because city planners have been directed to mass as many people as possible into small areas because they've been fed the same overpopulation crap that you're regurgitating in an effort to keep populations in the geographically controllable setting necessary for 'wage enslavement' where population density engenders codependence within society and dependence on corporate employment. Most of the planets O2 comes from photosynthetic single-celled organisms in the ocean anyway, which is more in danger from establishment originated pollution like Fukushima radiation and chemical spills than any source directly resulting from large populations. Fukushima could've been avoided by not building a nuke plant near the ocean (or building solar or hydro or tidal instead) and chemical spills occur when private corporations get lazy. Like i said- population isnt the problem. We have the technology to support way more people than exist if we act more efficiently. Overpopulation is a myth perpetrated by the elite who block access to resource, technology and efficiency while allowing the corporations they subsist off of to act irresponsibly, all to make you think their partners in government are right in limiting, controlling us.
Continuing with the "pile" I see.... City planners don't "mass as many people as possible into small areas because they've been fed the same overpopulation crap"" but because cities are where the JOBS are and people want to live close to work..... Your whole post is filled with scientific errors and why wouldn't these mysterious people controlling us want more slaves ????The more people the lower the wages.....no, nothing in your post makes sense.
Not to you, nor am I expecting it to. If everyone could see it, it wouldn't be working. Im just providing an alternative explanation for those with a more open mind than you who may be reading our exchange. So, thx for the opportunity and good luck with your narrow view!
And your view remains so narrow you couldn't even post my whole post...that helps you keep it narrow....
Most of it was just wasted space. Perhaps if you'd source your claims of my scientific incorrectness or provide a description as to how my analysis is flawed, it would add substance to your reply. But for all your words, the meaning is simply a derisive, baseless 'nuh uuuuh!'
Uh, you quoted my answer: """"DNA doesn't matter, a fetus is still a part of the woman it's in...it is not a person so has no rights no matter what it's DNA says or does..."" And, it's DNA proves it's part of the woman it's in (if you want to bring in DNA)......DNA can tell who it's mother is...so it's DNA is not totally "unique" which doesn't matter anyway, it is STILL attached to, and living off, the woman it's in.
Accomplishment is so foreign to some that they cannot distinguish it from privilege. Unlike financial accomplishment, I'm left to believe that the ability to distinguish between accomplishment and privilege is a good tell-tale as to whether or not one is mature enough to raise another well, let alone good.
A Time to Kill I am consistently mystified by the "Pro-Life" rightists' choleric opposition to abortion, while simultaneously supporting every conceivable path toward war with every defiant adversary nation known to man. Why are fetuses that are incapable of self-sustaining life more valuable to these people than the welfare of children already living? Why is the killing of innocent children in foreign nations an acceptable act while the killing of nonviable fetuses is regarded as murder? I have repeatedly failed to find a rational explanation for this moral dilemma.
Good post! I have challenged man Anti-Choicers on that but they're usually righties and see pregnant women, babies, children killed in war as "collateral damage", the "enemy". The fact is they only fake concern for a fetus because control of the fetus helps in attempting to control women. Their Real Goal....the destruction of women's rights through the fetus...
Repeating your claim the claim "a single human cell (zygote) is a human" over and over - despite the fact that the problems with your claim have been pointed out to you numerous times - does not make that claim true.
