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.
This thread is now two years on and frankly I cannot be bothered to go through all the thousands of posts, although I have no doubt that they have been thought provoking.
That said, I for one don't have issue with abortion, purely because I see it for what it is from the medical sense. Unfortunately, the word abortion has been bandied around far too much as meaning only ONE thing...which is... suppoosedly that women who have abortions are selfish..etc etc...
No.. I am in a category known as a serial abortionist. Not ONE of the abortions I have had, had anything to do with a desire to slut around unabated and in fact each one of them was out of my control. The only thing I HAD a say in, was to agree to D&C and sometimes DC&E... which, when ON ones medical records, is listed as "surgical abortion".
I just wish people would stop running with a BUZZ word and applying the BUZZ meaning to the word abortion.
The word ABORTION actually means.. premature expulsion....whether natural OR unnatural...
FACT: THE VAST MAJORITY of conceptions spontaneously abort before a positive pregnancy read can even be done. Then there are miscarriages (STILL an abortion) and if the miscarriage IS a late one (15-16 weeks) then it is KEY for a woman to have a D&C or DC&E to remove the remaining debris. Then we have things like molar pregnancies, blighted ovum...etc etc etc... ALL needing surgical abortion technique OF what was a WANTED pregnancy.
I am PRO CHOICE for the above reason. Speculating WHY women do have abortions, usually has ZERO to do with the facts BEHIND it. I am not going to make judgement on ANYONE and shame on those who DO, when they do NOT know all the facts.
Frankly, it's not your damned business anyway.
Indeed I've had 3, each was following double contraception use, sometimes REALLY bad luck just happens, shit happens, were it not for my abortions, I would have committed suicide, there's no way I would have endured and unwanted growth to carry on in my body without my consent!
I know of women who have also terminated pregnancies for reasons you did. I don't know if I ever could as such a situation never cropped up, but I would defend your right to the HILT for you to do with your body what you choose to.
Unfortunately far too many self-professed "pro-lifers" don't see, nor want to see that the reasons some women terminate pregnancies, that such a decision is not made lightly.
For example one quite rabid "pro-lifer" I was interacting with just recently, made the arduous claim that the MAJORITY of voluntary induced terminations, were done on girls who were more concerned with PROMNIGHT or "fooling around/promiscuity". It does not matter to her that the FACTS actually speak the contrary.. she just continued crapping on like a pork chop, going on to say that these girls were sociopaths and killers and other abuses toward them of that ilk.
Certainly, people have a right to an opinion on such matters, but they would make themselves look less stupid, IF their opinion was actually a learned one.
I'm pro abortion, but I really do wonder where you draw the line between personal or not. If I was pro-life, it would not be just for me, it would be for all society, one who's against the death penalty or animal cruelty doesn't just say "it's personal". I think saying "it's personal" is the weakest of arguments in the pro-choice movement. It's not "personal", it's societal, and ALL females MJST have the ability to control their own bodies. I will not stop on my campaign until all people stop calling things "personal". Personal is food choice, THIS is my life...