I agree with all you say; however, it misses the REAL point of the "pro-life" agenda. It is NOT about reverence for life; if it were, these people would oppose the death penalty and wars, but they don't; in fact, they tend to embrace both wholeheartedly. At its core, it is about the male domination many insecure men (and their obedient wives) see as being endorsed in the Bible. As I said, I agree with you, but it's a moot point, because it should not be MY decision, it should be YOURS and that of all women who face the agonizing choice.
You know one day, it would be really gratifying to walk into a "pro-life" abortion-banning, contraception-banning meeting, and announce:-
"You know what? You're right! Women can't interfere with the fertilised zygote! At any stage! Absolutely right..... So obviously, we must insist that all men have vasectomies!"
Now that we have artificial insemination sorted, we really don't need pregnancy from sex. Just have a bit of sperm frozen with your name on it, and line up here for the little snip.
No miniature calligraphy skills? Oh dear, we won't be needing your genes in the pool!
Excellent idea, I've been promoting that one for a couple of years. Most importantly, no teen pregnancies, no unwanted pregnancies, AT ALL, now that would be major progress.
On top of that, imagine how much more well loved all the children of the world would be if they were all planned for, dear me, I dare say the academic performance of youth would surely double.
You know Dale, it was never really about the sanctity of life for faithers, that was just a chimera. It was originally about patriarchy's rights to fertilise females at will, to ensure that EVERY SINGLE MALE got a piece of the action, instead of just alpha males; that's why the apparent cognitive dissonance with capital punishment etc,
China??? why on earth China??? they're by no means the biggest culprit!
Look at this page: List of countries by ecological footprint. But don't use the default view, be sure to sort according to the last column, which takes in to account for the footprint of the country, but also the country's resource availability. The net eco-value of sorts.
So if you really want to get rid of countries, this is the order it should proceed in for the first dozen:
1-United Arab Emirates
Now tweak that with demerit points for nasty attitude to human rights violations... I'd say no.9 would move to 4 and 12 would move to 6.
same here :)
Nuking anywhere to any degree would likely have a bigger effect than the relatively local one. A study done a few years ago estimated that a modest 30 mega tonne exchange (six 50 kilo tonne warheads) between the two nations would throw enough material into the atmosphere to shorten crop growing seasons over the entire globe enough to reduce yields globally by some 20%. This was not taking into account the fact that due to radioactive contamination other crops would not consumable, and no new crops could be grown in those contaminated areas until the top 60cm of soil had been scraped away, which would be a vast civil engineering effort in itself.
Interestingly this study was done using computer modelling developed for climate change scenarios and surprised those who did it by just how modest an exchange could have a big global impact. Makes you wonder just how useful all those warheads actually are, it certainly made someone wonder because the proposed follow on study for smaller and larger exchanges was killed off, so it had someone worried.
I wish I could remember who did the study, if it comes to me I will post it.
Judith vd R.
I swear I'm really not a fan of a slow death for thousands of people! It's the main reason I'm pro abortion, and fixin'. Masssive breeding slow-down or stoppage can be achieved, it's a positive ecological outcome.