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.
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.