|
|
Post by RussianJewishAth on Feb 19, 2004 13:49:45 GMT -5
You know in Russia they are thinking about banning it for very simple reasons which I kinda support. First of all Russian population growth rate is -2% a year.
Part of this stems out of about 1.5 million people leaving Russia to immigrate to other country yearly.
And another part is acceptance of abortion as inherent right of woman and it is even paid for by Federal govt'.
They tried giving incentives ergo if a married couple has two or more kids they get extra monetary support and he is automaticly exempt from any military service. But this didnt lessen the problem. Now they are discussing taking out the federal funding so that people would have to pay on their own. Also some are saying it should be banned (by some i mean members of the parliament) altogether because they need people. Maybe even giving an equivalent of 3000 dollars to women who would give up their kids to the orphanage instead of abort them. I think abortion is russia is about 4.2 or 6 per woman something like that dont remember the exact statistic.
During the czarist times Russia had one of the highest growth rates in the world somewhere 12-14% just warred frequently and famine hit every couple of years.
But that was because of the rural peasantry which is non-existant more or less in todays terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Feb 27, 2004 5:22:02 GMT -5
It's not just Russia. The birth rates almost everywhere in the world have fallen below the rate required to maintain population. Liberals think it's great but someday there won't be enough tax payers to take care of their wrinkled, old asses.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Feb 29, 2004 8:27:36 GMT -5
So if women are choosing not to have children, we should force them to by taking away their ability to choose not to? Why not make contraception illegal while we're at it?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 1, 2004 3:09:09 GMT -5
Because, sweetie, one is preventing a new life and one is killing a new life. Science has determined that the end of a human life is the absence of brain waves. It is only logical that the beginning of life is at least by the point of brain waves.
A woman has a right to choose not to get pregnant.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 1, 2004 18:57:02 GMT -5
Don't condescend to me. You're the one who belongs to the same party of people who would, in fact, have absolutely no problem getting rid of birth control as a means to shove women back into the home and out of public life.
Who was debating this? Certainly not me. Never have, never will.
I love how social conservatives selectively cite science. Science also provides a basis for selective abortion by the mother in times when resources are scarce. Don't see you making much of that. Science also indicates that monogamy is not a natural state. Why don't I hear social conservatives barking up that scientific tree?
It's the same kind of ignorant hypocrisy in the social conservative's argument against gays getting married, as though a heterosexual union is naturally better, and gay marriages will threaten the institution as a whole. All of which ignores that there are many species where offspring are raised without the input of the father (elephants, mice, and other mammals) AND conveniently ignores the fact that lenient divorce laws have done far more damage to the institution of marriage than gays will ever accomplish. Why don't I see Bush bumbling about a Constitutional amendment banning divorce?
At the bottom, social conservatives are simply ignorant people who are either too stupid, or too selfish to adapt to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 1, 2004 20:13:41 GMT -5
You said:
I said:
You said:
;D
You can muddy the water with mudslinging but the truth is there is really only one pertinent issue in the abortion debate. That is whether or not it is a human life.
The gay talk is down the hall to the left.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 1, 2004 21:35:47 GMT -5
Something I already stipulated to. Apparently you missed it: I agree that abortion terminates a human life. I also believe, however, that people who argue for a "culture of life" but hail from a religion that endorses killing when it suits their purposes and wants to force women into dependence on men, or a political party that favors BUSINESS over your working-class American, is as full of it as they come. I will repeat: abortion is an indictment of our world: it should not surprise anyone that women have always sought to tear the unborn from their wombs: the world rewards those who do and renders helpless those who don't. You can start talking to me about the morality of abortion when you and your right-wing bigoted cronies start arguing for the liberation of women, not for means to return them to dependency.
Social conservatives want the U.S. to return to way things were in the 1950s: well guess what? The culture of the past is what caused the women's movement. Are you actually all so naive as to believe that if we can turn back the clock, the same indignities will not occur? The call of liberty and dignified self-determination are irresistible. Even if social conservatives could manage to turn back the clock, it would simply result in women rebelling again. The status of women in 1950 was intolerable then, and if recreated, would be found to be intolerable now. Now amount of rhetoric or propaganda from the likes of you will change that.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 1, 2004 23:53:35 GMT -5
So to summarize your point- You think abortion is fine, even though you acknowledge that it is killing a human being. You justify the killing because there are conservatives in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 2, 2004 8:49:03 GMT -5
Actually, I justify abortion because I see absolutely no reason why women should be held to a higher ethical standard than everyone else is following.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 2, 2004 12:10:15 GMT -5
Well the ones that kill their own kids certainly don't! Women have certainly slipped to a position of less power. They once set those social ethical standards.
It's a survival of the fittest deal! Liberals are killing their kids while the evil conservatives are reproducing themselves!
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 2, 2004 21:15:01 GMT -5
Please summarize your knowledge of Darwin's theory of evolution.
As for fitness, reproduction no longer is the defining test: evolution has been affected far more by ideas than biology over the last 100 years. Stupid social conservative women waste their entire lives raising children who can and often do turn against them later in life - thanks to IDEAS born of the MINDS of liberal women. Your kid really isn't yours if they don't adopt your values, now are they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 2, 2004 22:21:02 GMT -5
Your indifference at the taking of a human life shows the Hitler in you.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 2, 2004 22:40:56 GMT -5
Most everyone is a liberal when they are young and stupid. They may stay stupid if they are dependent on the government, they stay in academia or are rich enough to be the liberal elite. Most all of the liberal freaks grow up and at least become libertarian when they are faced with economic reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 3, 2004 8:11:18 GMT -5
It's the EXACT same indifference that conservatives show towards people on death row, and, incidentally, to the people in the Congo who are being slaughtered by the thousand, or to anyone anywhere their interests do not lie. Social conservatives CANNOT argue that they want to create a "culture of life." Everything they've ever stood for belies the fact that the abortion issue is really about making women dependent on men. The baptist constitution writes this dependence into church dogma.
While YOU may be against capital punishment and non-self-defensive war, most of your movement brethren couldn't give two figs less about just about any other (besides a fetus) human life you can come up with. It's a straw man, Ian, a straw man. Recognition of this is why a simple majority of the American public want to keep abortion legal under limited circumstances (life of the mother, rape, incest, or during early pregnancy).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ender312 on Mar 3, 2004 22:12:38 GMT -5
I'm going to keep this short. a simple majority of the American public want to keep abortion legal under limited circumstances (life of the mother, rape, incest, or during early pregnancy). I'll go through these: life of the mother, rape, incest, or during early pregnancy. Life of the mother is at risk. This is a tough situation in which the family has to choose. We say that the life of the mother is at risk, but the life of the child is at risk as well. Rape. A pregnancy resulting from rape can be a traumatizing situation for any woman. But i'm sure if you ask a child born out of rape, that child is happy to be alive and loves life as much as anyone else. If the mother can't live with the constant remembrance of the act, then put the child up for adoption. On one hand the mother never sees the child because he or she is dead, on the other the mother never sees the child because he or she lives somewhere, possible out of state. Incest. Much like rape, the child may enjoy his or her life. Try telling a child that he or she has to die because he or she may have genetic flaws that can't be allowed to be passed on. During early pregnancy. This is the one that gets me. "If we kill it early enough, its not as bad as if we kill it later" What? If someone goes out and kills a ten year old would their sentence be less severe than if the same person kills a sixty year old? No, it would most likely be the opposite. |
|
