It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholic Nun Perfectly Explains the Hypocrisy of the "Pro-Life" Argument

page: 19
128
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: RomeByFire
Hard to disagree with her.

People talk about "murdering an unborn baby, it's a sin!," yet have no quarrel with their tax dollars being used to fund drone programs that murder innocent men, woman, and children in five+ sovereign nations.

The victim shaming that comes with those who have been raped and need an abortion is absolutely staggering.

Also, I really don't think men (and I'm a dude, too) should really have any say in the matter.

We don't carry around fetuses for nearly a year. We have no #ing idea what that is like. We have no #ing idea what it would be like to be raped and become pregnant.

But, in the land of authoritarian wannabes...


Men have every right to say in the matter. It's the actions of both males and females together which make babies.

You can also be non intervenalist and anti abortion.


As a man, no we shouldn't. There is a serious double standard here though -- I think that you shouldn't necessarily by default be bound to the financial responsibility provided you don't want to have the baby and she does, but this is a whole level above what you're talking about.

The man should NOT have a say in what the woman shall do with her body. Men don't carry the baby, or birth it. Men don't have to deal with the physical repercussions on the body that comes with birthing a baby. They don't have to go through the hormone changes as well -- we literally deposit, and then it's all on mom's autopilot.

What gives you the right to force her to carry a baby if she doesn't want to be under that stress and physical strain, as well as the social and economic strain that goes with it as well? What gives you the right to force her to terminate it if she chooses to accept the risk/stress/strain that goes with bringing that baby to term?

Nothing gives you that right, at least -- if you believe in Freedom and freewill -- it's not YOUR body, even if it's your sperm. You believe that if a man's sperm fertilizes a woman's egg, that the man now commands temporary ownership over the mom's body as if it were just a physical vessel for your sperm?

I'd have a different view if men only had one sperm and could only have one shot at fathering a child, but -- you have billions. If your lady doesn't want your baby -- find a lady that wants your baby instead of forcing your unwanted child upon her. It's absolutely ludicrous that you could think that men could/should have a say over what she decides to do.

If you don't want the baby, or didn't know about the baby -- I don't think you should have to bear the financial responsibility if she decides to bring it to term. The choice to terminate or to bring to term should solely be on the woman, but if she decides she wants it, and you don't, if she makes the decision to bring it to term -- it's without you, so you shouldn't be responsible for her decision. She should be choosing what is best for her all things considered -- and just like men shouldn't have a say in whether or not a woman can terminate, women shouldn't have a say in whether or not the man has to foot the bill for her decision.

In other words, men shouldn't force women, and women shouldn't force men. Babies are not something you own at any stage from prenatal to full on birth.
edit on 5-2-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Otherwise it's none of your business what one who chooses abortion does.


Isn't it ironic how you, alongside others in the "pro-abortion" crowd, believe that it is completely okay to force people to pay for the abortions of others, even millions of those people think abortion is murder?...



Oh, I think abortions should be 100% free and paid for by the government.

Along with contraceptives and every other method of birth control.

I am forced to pay taxes on many things I do not support. So is everyone. It's kind of how it works.


People think the only rights that matter are the rights of the parents, not the rights of the new citizen. A new citizen deserves a pregnancy without illicit drug consumption, without alcohol consumption, and with proper nutrition. A new citizen also deserves good genetics, and adequate housing, education, health care, mentally fit parents. In other words there are prerequisites that need be met before a new citizen is allowed into this world.

What needs be developed is safe reversible sterilization, and only those who're intent on having a baby, assuming they meet the basic requirements, only then can the procedure to reverse sterilization be carried out temporarily to allow for pregnancy.


Some have suggested all male babies have reversible vasectomies at birth.

Will that work for you?


If perfected it would be a good idea. I still here some claim a fraction of those who get such done get potential side effects from the procedure.

But I also think that from what I hear many other animals do not have to go through monthly periods. Very athletic women are also said to sometimes lose the ability to have periods. I think females would appreciate it if they no longer had to go through that each month.


originally posted by: Agartha

The key is there: choice. I wish abortions were never carried out, but I will fight fiercely for women to have the right to choose whether they will have one or not. It's their choice only.




Nature has many imperfections, many diseases and problems. But we can fix it. I believe it'd be best if we developed artificial wombs for reproduction, and natural means of reproduction were relinquished. Thus sex would only be for pleasure, and the act of procreation would be entirely distinct and separate.

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

Look, laws are not legislated to impose morality. They are legislated by and for the people, according to the US Constitution, to provide the best possible scenarios for the public good.

The autonomy and privacy of a woman's relationship with her body, her doctor and her family are Constitutionally protected. Roe V Wade intrudes and violates that relationship in a way that rationalized public good. Okay. Beyond that, your input, your church's or your personal philosophical outlook have no bearing on judicial jurisdiction of the regulation of the contents of a woman's uterus.





The constitution applies to all people in the country.

I lean close to being a libertarian. I believe in maximum individual liberty, and constraints on government action.

However, the rights of the individual stop when the wish to do harm to others.

So even if everything you say is right, it only applies if the fetus or baby is not considered a life. Once we do consider the baby a life, then it to has rights under the constitution.

Now when is the baby a life? Its a very complicated matter i and I am not researched enough to even begin to make a good argument.

However, I know that at 9 months, all science says the baby is alive. Therefore that baby has rights too, such as the right to life.

Now i am taking no stance on if the motjers life is in danger or other issues. That is a complicated debate, and I think in that case the abortion should be ok.

But annee and others claim that it should only be up to the woman and she can abort at any time for any reason is horrible, and needs to be called out.


I don't think anyone is arguing whether the fetus or baby is alive, but what rights does it have under the constitution, which presently states that only those who are born have those rights.


If you 3d printed a human with future biotech, they'd clearly have full citizenship and full human rights. Or it'd be quite bonkers.



originally posted by: Grambler

No one has slaves in the US. But if some racist scrum bag on says says he thinks whites should be allowed to have slaves, I would be outraged and condemn it. You not only woulnt apoarently, you would claim I was just pretending to be outraged for criticizing it.



Saying that those of a particular race should have rights over another race, is racist stupid stuff. That said. There are individuals who would willingly become slaves if proper compensation is given to their families or a cause of their interest or perhaps merely on a whim. If a way out and proper treatment laws are put in place, such temporary servitude is not unreasonable. But it'd be broad and apply to all not just those of a specific group, and it be something done willingly and properly compensated.

In any case we don't call it that, but the vast majority of society are basically slaves to the Upper Classes. Slaves forced to struggle to find work any meaningless activity for peanuts, debt slaves. Slaves to Upper Classes that work on a whim, but may make more in a month passively from their investments than a hundred working men make in a lifetime of work.

In any case, power continues to concentrate, and it will eventually come to pass that from nations greater power still will fall into the hands of corporations, and it is power which dictates the law, it is power which upholds the law, it is power that sustains the law. Once enough power transfers to corporations, it will be a different world.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
She seems good at creating a straw man argument then attacking it. Very progressive of her.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: fencesitter85




Who the hell is aborting a baby at 9 months?


Your failure to read the whole thread amounts to laziness



It's also a contributing factor to global poverty and famine,


So more babies cause droughts and bad crop's. I see... NOT


My failure to read the whole thread amounts to having less free time than you do.

And I said CONTRIBUTING FACTOR, not cause. So please try again.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   


Saying that those of a particular race should have rights over another race, is racist stupid stuff. That said. There are individuals who would willingly become slaves if proper compensation is given to their families or a cause of their interest or perhaps merely on a whim. If a way out and proper treatment laws are put in place, such temporary servitude is not unreasonable. But it'd be broad and apply to all not just those of a specific group, and it be something done willingly and properly compensated.

In any case we don't call it that, but the vast majority of society are basically slaves to the Upper Classes. Slaves forced to struggle to find work any meaningless activity for peanuts, debt slaves. Slaves to Upper Classes that work on a whim, but may make more in a month passively from their investments than a hundred working men make in a lifetime of work.

In any case, power continues to concentrate, and it will eventually come to pass that from nations greater power still will fall into the hands of corporations, and it is power which dictates the law, it is power which upholds the law, it is power that sustains the law. Once enough power transfers to corporations, it will be a different world.



You're not a slave if there is compensation. You're trading your service for said compensation -- that is not slavery. Slavery is when you do not have a choice and you're working for no compensation.

Secondly -- wtf, you want erase natural birth? That does nothing but make us less human.

I also want to point out to all the wackos out there -- abstaining from having babies is the same thing as abortion.

Abstinence means you don't use your sperm/eggs -- it's the same as throwing them into the garbage can. So you're saying, once you fertilize and egg with the sperm, to put it in simple terms, once you mix the sperm with the egg, you can no longer throw it out? And somehow -- throwing out that mixed batch is worse than throwing out the reagents prior to mixing?

No. Just -- no. Abortion is not killing a living person -- it's terminating a potential. Abstinence is still 100% terminating potentials. There is no difference outside of one of semantics. It's considered a potential until it's born and alive and breathing on it's own and forming memories and is aware it exists.

Nobody can remember being inside the womb -- it's impossible because you're not cognitive yet, you aren't capable of forming memories in the womb, you were not a person -- in the womb -- even if you could kick the womb, that is a motor reflex, not a cognitive choice. Abortion is not murder, you are not killing children. You are terminating a potential -- the same as if I were to freeze my sperm, and my wife to freeze her egg -- and then we decide we don't want to fertilize it and destroy our frozen samples. In possession of both samples I have the ingredients to make a person, destroying those ingredients is destroying the child they would have made -- which is 100% the same thing as aborting it once you've fertilized it.

Having a vasectomy destroys billions of potential babies, having your tubes tied destroys dozens of potential babies. Abstaining from sex will destroy every sperms potential and every eggs potential at becoming a child the same as having a vasectomy or having tubes tied, or having an abortion. There is zero tangible difference between any of these options, the only difference is the stage, and you're not a person until you're independent of the womb [that means birthed]-- you're a parasite up until that point.

The world is much better off terminating unwanted babies then forcing them into the world where they will live in halfway homes praying to be adopted -- many of which won't be, many of which will have terrible lives and then even become criminals -- so not only would they be a burden of everyone else and weigh heavily against the wealth of society, but then they will with higher percentages have the potentials to become difficulties, rather than productives.

Forcing unwanted babies onto the world so everyone else can carry the burden is only stressing society for zero tangible reason.

If you're prolife than you should support men having as many babies as they can, as not is wasting life seed/killing potential persons -- and if they did that, each single man would father hundreds in not thousands of children.

As you'd be able to work out -- we'd need the ocean to be landmass just to fit all those people that could possibly be born and then we'd still run out of space.
edit on 5-2-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: AnkhMorpork


It's still the woman's fault 100% - - - let me know when it becomes 50%.








I think we have some agreement on the crux of this point, but I do think that society blames deadbeat dads, and do not 100% blame the woman. I know I think deadebeat dads are one of the biggest problems we have in this country, and there are a lot of women that struggle because some garbage man left them high and dry.

Women that have raised there children in a successful manner in a single parent household are stronger than I ever will be. I was blessed to have two caring parents, but I saw some of my friends that were raised just by their mom, and these mothers are some of the biggest inspirations in my life.


Don't know if it's true, but from what I hear unless the mother has no clue who the father is.... The father has to pay child support or go to jail. In fact I hear if he can't get employment to pay for child support he goes to jail.




The problem begins with child support orders that, at the outset, can exceed parents’ ability to pay. When parents fall short, the authorities escalate collection efforts, withholding up to 65 percent of a paycheck, seizing bank deposits and tax refunds, suspending driver’s licenses and professional licenses, and then imposing jail time.

...

“Parents who are truly destitute go to jail over and over again for child support debt simply because they’re poor,” said Sarah Geraghty, a lawyer with the Southern Center for Human Rights, which filed a class-action lawsuit in Georgia on behalf of parents incarcerated without legal representation for failure to pay. “We see many cases in which the person is released, they’re given three months to pay a large amount of money, and then if they can’t do that they’re tossed right back in the county jail.”


...source link


Thing is the ability to create sperm from other cells has taken place in animals and will happen for humans. In the past it was the fear of someone breaking a condom, lying about the pill, etc. But soon even complete strangers could be charged and be seen as the genetic parents of children who were conceived without their awareness.human sperm cells created from skin cells

The time is coming for the state to regulate reproduction. The only way we can have unregulated reproduction is with a massive death rate, end most deaths from disease, crime, accident and aging and the death rate plummets near zero, so too must the birth rate by logical necessity. IT is only due to ignorance that has allowed little funding to longevity science, that we are where we are.

But progress is inevitable, and logical necessity must be met, no one can refute reality, all must abide by the one truth that governs the world. That which is logically inevitable will be, and we all know the odds of voluntarily dropping the birth rate to near zero are abysmal, virtually zero, so how long do you thing an astronomical death rate can keep going? Realize the moment the astronomic death rate goes away, so too does the leeway for unrestrained reproduction.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and it will force your hand, it will force society's hand into protecting the rights of new citizens by logical inevitability.


edit on 5-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I find it interesting that Republicans seem to value the life of an unborn fetus over the life of a Muslim refugee



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

Don't know if it's true, but from what I hear unless the mother has no clue who the father is.... The father has to pay child support or go to jail. In fact I hear if he can't get employment to pay for child support he goes to jail.



In the US? I'd say rarely.

Only if the mother/kids are receiving government aid and they can make a case.

Canada is more stringent.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: AnkhMorpork


It's still the woman's fault 100% - - - let me know when it becomes 50%.








I think we have some agreement on the crux of this point, but I do think that society blames deadbeat dads, and do not 100% blame the woman. I know I think deadebeat dads are one of the biggest problems we have in this country, and there are a lot of women that struggle because some garbage man left them high and dry.

Women that have raised there children in a successful manner in a single parent household are stronger than I ever will be. I was blessed to have two caring parents, but I saw some of my friends that were raised just by their mom, and these mothers are some of the biggest inspirations in my life.


Don't know if it's true, but from what I hear unless the mother has no clue who the father is.... The father has to pay child support or go to jail. In fact I hear if he can't get employment to pay for child support he goes to jail.




The problem begins with child support orders that, at the outset, can exceed parents’ ability to pay. When parents fall short, the authorities escalate collection efforts, withholding up to 65 percent of a paycheck, seizing bank deposits and tax refunds, suspending driver’s licenses and professional licenses, and then imposing jail time.

...

“Parents who are truly destitute go to jail over and over again for child support debt simply because they’re poor,” said Sarah Geraghty, a lawyer with the Southern Center for Human Rights, which filed a class-action lawsuit in Georgia on behalf of parents incarcerated without legal representation for failure to pay. “We see many cases in which the person is released, they’re given three months to pay a large amount of money, and then if they can’t do that they’re tossed right back in the county jail.”


...source link


Thing is the ability to create sperm from other cells has taken place in animals and will happen for humans. In the past it was the fear of someone breaking a condom, lying about the pill, etc. But soon even complete strangers could be charged and be seen as the genetic parents of children who were conceived without their awareness.human sperm cells created from skin cells

The time is coming for the state to regulate reproduction. The only way we can have unregulated reproduction is with a massive death rate, end most deaths from disease, crime, accident and aging and the death rate plummets near zero, so too must the birth rate by logical necessity. IT is only due to ignorance that has allowed little funding to longevity science, that we are where we are.

But progress is inevitable, and logical necessity must be met, no one can refute reality, all must abide by the one truth that governs the world. That which is logically inevitable will be, and we all know the odds of voluntarily dropping the birth rate to near zero are abysmal, virtually zero, so how long do you thing an astronomical death rate can keep going? Realize the moment the astronomic death rate goes away, so too does the leeway for unrestrained reproduction.


You cannot drop the birthrate to 0 because death rate will never be zero, and if you do 1:1 then you're controlling whether or not certain families get to reproduce at all, which then would force actual eugenics. You'd have to actively seek out good potential DNA and force those to reproduce against their will or you will drastically reduce variety, which is necessary in reproduction. So to be frank -- you'd have to force people who don't even know each other into having children and you'd be removing others rights to actually have families and continue their bloodlines. If my genetics aren't deemed good enough, I don't get the right to have a family in your future....

The lack of genetic diversity/variety is why incest produces birth defects, because there is no genetic variety. You cannot regulate birth, you cannot tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own body and still have freedom.

You are a pro-totalitarian, pro-dictator, anti-freedom, eugenicist. That future will lead to the fabled Aryan race -- you are supporting the ideologies of Nazi's with your position. The true Aryan race would not be white like Hitler envisioned, it would be all mixed taking the best markers from the best human samples and creating new superior people out of that, but you're still doing the exact same thing as Adolf -- just more efficiently -- it's still absolutely Evil and cannot sustain freedom.

I know, you're gonna say "That's not what I'm saying!" but it is -- you have to understand that you will never get rid of disagreement even if you do get rid of death. So if we conquer death and bring the death rate to 0, people will still die to murder and wars over differences of opinion, and then you need to crank back up the baby making to replenish the losses. The only way to avoid this from happening is to go full on Equilibrium and essentially mind control everyone into being a drone/hive mind that all share the exact same values, completely destroying freedom in the process.

Freedom comes with it's risks. We accept the potential of death for the freedom to live how we choose, it's much better to live a happy live with the risk of death than it is to live an immortal one as a worker drone.

The solution is actually really simple -- allow people to choose. Stop demonizing abortion and support it, and you will have people opt into not reproducing. You also have to take away the welfare advantages for popping out a dozen kids. You have to decentivize mass birthing per mother and foster incentive to people to have children when they can actually support it -- and you have to allow people who don't want kids to not have kids provided they made a mistake and/or their contraceptives didn't work as advertised, or if they were raped against their will, etc.

The answer is non-regulated abortion. Anybody who doesn't see abortion as a tool for society to keep itself sustainable is not a forward thinker and is likely not very educated at all.

Abortions shouldn't be forced, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with them and should remain as a choice for all time. We need to stop demonizing it with propaganda and warping/brainwashing people into thinking abortion is unethical or bad when it's neither. It's a tool, a necessity, that has been provided through advancement of technology and medical knowledge -- if the stigma of abortions dissolved and people wouldn't fear ridicule for using the process, you'd see a society that was a lot more viable, one with less crime, less well fare, better standards of living and economic boom.
edit on 5-2-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
God himself performs abortions. They're called miscarriages. Oh, and nowhere in the Bible is abortion even mentioned, let alone condemning it.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

The time is coming for the state to regulate reproduction.


What do you suggest.

I am also a supporter of regulating reproduction.

Is that a separate topic? I believe there have been specific threads on this.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
How long are we going to kick this dead horse? Some people believe that an abortion for any reason a woman wants one is OK, others see it as a sin....really doesn't matter. The ability to have abortions is not going away and will most likely be moot in the very near future or at best extremely rare. As science perfects the ability to turn off and on in both women and men the ability to reproduce we will see control over the population.

This has been such a long term agenda of the left to suggest the Republicans are going to take this away. It has worked well for about 40 years but as I said it is a dead horse, so keep on kicking lol.

The new fear tactic is to say abortions paid for by the state is a woman's right, and once again, the Republicans are going to take away that right...Well it is not a right, and second I don't see this going away anytime soon either, so people just need to get over it all on both sides of the debate.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears


originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Otherwise it's none of your business what one who chooses abortion does.


Isn't it ironic how you, alongside others in the "pro-abortion" crowd, believe that it is completely okay to force people to pay for the abortions of others, even millions of those people think abortion is murder?...



Oh, I think abortions should be 100% free and paid for by the government.

Along with contraceptives and every other method of birth control.

I am forced to pay taxes on many things I do not support. So is everyone. It's kind of how it works.


People think the only rights that matter are the rights of the parents, not the rights of the new citizen. A new citizen deserves a pregnancy without illicit drug consumption, without alcohol consumption, and with proper nutrition. A new citizen also deserves good genetics, and adequate housing, education, health care, mentally fit parents. In other words there are prerequisites that need be met before a new citizen is allowed into this world.

What needs be developed is safe reversible sterilization, and only those who're intent on having a baby, assuming they meet the basic requirements, only then can the procedure to reverse sterilization be carried out temporarily to allow for pregnancy.


Some have suggested all male babies have reversible vasectomies at birth.

Will that work for you?


If perfected it would be a good idea. I still here some claim a fraction of those who get such done get potential side effects from the procedure.

But I also think that from what I hear many other animals do not have to go through monthly periods. Very athletic women are also said to sometimes lose the ability to have periods. I think females would appreciate it if they no longer had to go through that each month.



The male's reproduction anatomy is far less complicated then the woman's.

Yes, always possible side effects no matter what.

However, short of sterilization side effects - - the sperm could always be harvested.

Realistically, men are no longer needed. Frozen sperm has been proven to be just as good if not better then fresh.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime


You're not a slave if there is compensation. You're trading your service for said compensation -- that is not slavery. Slavery is when you do not have a choice and you're working for no compensation.
.

Well obviously you can't sell yourself to science, the arts, or to private enterprise. You'd be compensated, but it is legally forbidden, such contract would make you a slave even if compensated.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime

You cannot drop the birthrate to 0 because death rate will never be zero, and if you do 1:1 then you're controlling whether or not certain families get to reproduce at all, which then would force actual eugenics. You'd have to actively seek out good potential DNA and force those to reproduce against their will or you will drastically reduce variety, which is necessary in reproduction. So to be frank -- you'd have to force people who don't even know each other into having children and you'd be removing others rights to actually have families and continue their bloodlines. If my genetics aren't deemed good enough, I don't get the right to have a family in your future....

The lack of genetic diversity/variety is why incest produces birth defects, because there is no genetic variety. You cannot regulate birth, you cannot tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own body and still have freedom.

You are a pro-totalitarian, pro-dictator, anti-freedom, eugenicist. That future will lead to the fabled Aryan race -- you are supporting the ideologies of Nazi's with your position. The true Aryan race would not be white like Hitler envisioned, it would be all mixed taking the best markers from the best human samples and creating new superior people out of that, but you're still doing the exact same thing as Adolf -- just more efficiently -- it's still absolutely Evil and cannot sustain freedom.

I know, you're gonna say "That's not what I'm saying!" but it is -- you have to understand that you will never get rid of disagreement even if you do get rid of death. So if we conquer death and bring the death rate to 0, people will still die to murder and wars over differences of opinion, and then you need to crank back up the baby making to replenish the losses. The only way to avoid this from happening is to go full on Equilibrium and essentially mind control everyone into being a drone/hive mind that all share the exact same values, completely destroying freedom in the process.

Freedom comes with it's risks. We accept the potential of death for the freedom to live how we choose, it's much better to live a happy live with the risk of death than it is to live an immortal one as a worker drone.


Power is concentrating, unlike last time when royalties and nobilities arose, and had to suffer the genetic consequences of inbreeding. We will have the means of protecting genetic quality in the future through genetic modification to correct any imperfection.

It is likely that as power concentrates inbreeding will indeed take place, but this time technology will ensure it will cause no genetic defects. Genetic modification will allow healthier than naturally possible offspring.

The problem is you say you cannot tell someone what they can or cannot do, but here's the thing when two parents have a child, there are 3 parties involved, the 2 parents and the child, and the parents rights do not trump the child's rights. It is the state's right to protect such an individual from any infringement to their rights that may harm them.

As for death, realize that the death from the diseases of aging is in the tens of millions per year, drop that and it is significant.

Automated transportation and automated security will improve things.

You need to realize that right now an individual suffers oxygen deprivation for a bit, and they get irreparable brain damage and possible brain death. As medicine advances ,the body will be altered, hours or days, perhaps even decades or more, without oxygen will be survivable. Right now you suffer extensive brain damage, and it is game over. But regenerative medicine will be able to eventually repair both body and brain, even from extensive brain damage. Brain state backups, will allow for recovery from seemingly impossible states of damage. It will require extraordinary destruction of not just the complete physical body but of remote backups to actually kill an individual, it will eventually be pretty darn near impossible.

Not seeing how death rate will not be insignificant, I say zero, but it need not be exactly zero, any small enough death rate demands a similarly small birth rate to maintain a stable population. To ensure a stable population, and to guarantee the rights of new citizens, the state should have the right to put minimum requirements to allow for reproduction.

Each new citizen is owed, education, healthcare, housing, travel, living expenses, adequate indoctrination free childhood, either a basic guaranteed income or guaranteed employment, etc, etc, etc. They also deserve illicit drug free, alcohol free, tobacco free, pregnancy with optimal nutrition. These families you see in fiction where the parents threaten the children with physical abuse, verbal abuse, isolation abuse, or even tossing them out on the streets, all that is BS... and it is not like that is some imaginary thing that never happens in the real world, or the stories themselves would be unrelatable and ludicrous.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

As she has not declared herself prochoice. She is Imo pointing out the hypocrisy of let babies be born into unsafe situations. As an example Africa. Thousands of children are conceived due to a lack of birth control and a lacK of choice. Birth happens and the kids are left to starve.

The examples in North are less dramatic but exist nonetheless. Poor choice by young women or domineering men create situations that may require harsh decisions. Its not just young women who share this issue. Women with careers can find themselves awkward encumbered and find themselves pondering " Can I raise a baby alone?"

Any way, the nun is pointing out that requiring a baby to be born into suffering is not nessecary in our world if we choose.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xenogears

The time is coming for the state to regulate reproduction.


What do you suggest.

I am also a supporter of regulating reproduction.

Is that a separate topic? I believe there have been specific threads on this.


I suggest the rights of the newborn trump anyone's rights over them. It is indeed a problem that even the state itself is corrupt, and probably not the best entity to protect such rights, but such is life. We all know there are minimal level of requirements that must be met, at the least, children are forcefully removed if such are not met.

We do need a safe side effect free reversible sterilization procedure, and it needs to be provided to all new citizens.

Teenagers are not fit to be parents, contraceptives fail, yet they can and will engage in sexual relations with each other. An inevitable consequence is unwanted teenage pregnancies, shame and indoctrination will lead many to become parents who do not have the necessary maturity, education or financial means to be such. We can at least spare them from unwanted pregnancies if they're all reversibly sterilized.

We also need something akin to a license to reproduce. Assuming the death rate remains reasonably high, almost all who wanted to have children would be able to, as there would be leeway with the birth rate. But if we can, as we should hope, drive the death rate low enough, we may have to carry some manner of randomized selection from qualified candidates for fairness.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

It might surprise you that I agree.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

"If you don't tax yourself into prosperity, you hate human beings"

Ok.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   


example Africa. Thousands of children are conceived due to a lack of birth control and a lacK of choice. Birth happens and the kids are left to starve


This is just one of the many, many ways that conservatism kills. I would say that nothing in this world has killed more people that conservatism except for diseases and plagues.



new topics

top topics



 
128
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join