Actually, its very similar to sentiments voiced by probably the most esteemed American legal mind ever, Oliver Wendell Holmes. "It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." real talk.
NJ is the most densely populated state. If the entire US was as densely populated as NJ all we would need is an area the size of Texas. We have an abundance of untapped natural resources. The problem isn't the amount of people, it's the corruption and uselessness of our government. Same problems gonna exists whether we got twice as many people or half.
It only took 60 posts, glad we got to the truth though. The whole debate about what's human / when life begins is just a facade of bullshit. You guys, like the founder of planned parenthood, are just supporters of eugenical genocide. Case closed, we can end the thread now. By the way Dierking, funny you responded to my Nazi comment with that Oliver Wendall Holmes quote from that abomination of a court decision from the 1920's, because those words were the exact ones that were used by the Nazis for their defense at the Nuremburg trials. DID YOU GET THAT BUDDY? The Nazis used that quote in their attempt to justify the holocaust. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself. Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr is only considered great by liberal idiots, he's the most overrated judge ever. He was a racist, an elitist, a eugenicist, and a progressive dickhead. His "best" contribution to American law was bastardizing the constitution by originating the whole "living document" bullshit, a downhill spiral that has lead to the quasi police state of supreme government power that we live under today. That Supreme Court decision you quote opened the gates for the atrocity of forced sterilization in America and served to legitimize the farce of eugenics in this country. You know what, I'm glad you brought it up. Let's have a history lesson: "Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists. Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. While Hitler's race hatred sprung from his own mind, the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America." http://hnn.us/article/1796#sthash.gQl1X2Eo.dpuf Suck on that a while. Here's where the attempt to rationalize abortion has lead, to the fucking holocaust. Let's see, 11 million killed by the holocaust, 57 million abortions in this county since 1967, inc. 20 million blacks, Hitler would be proud. By the way, I dug up those numbers from The Abortion Index which had this gem Also this
The problem in general is that a small portion of the human population hoard the wealth and resources for themselves. If the wealth of nations were evenly distributed 90% of the problems would go away. Not that I'm some socialist commie that believes in anything like re-distribution (I'm a free markets guy), just stating an observation
The good ol' slippery slope fallacy. If I believe one way I HAVE to believe the other way, right? The thing that matters is the development of the brain, IMO. The brain doesn't even start to function until 10 weeks in. This is why I believe it should be kept to first trimester. It is much more humane, as the baby is not even utilizing the brain yet, for the most part. That's funny, according to this link the baby isn't fully formed until 11-12 weeks in. But yeah, you can't argue with such an amazing scientific analysis as "it looks human." based on pictures at a site called "priestforlife.com" LOL http://www.babycenter.com/0_fetal-development-timeline_10357636.bc Would you like a cookie? You do realize at 6 weeks that your brain is not functioning, so yeah I'm going to call bullshit on that one, buddy. Bahahahaaaaa! Yeah I'm a nazi because I recognize that our planet is over populated. I love it. Evolution is a fact. Religion... not quite. I based my views on science and the real world, not an imaginary deity. Population control matters. After 2 children, tubes should be tied, bottom line. Now you've really outdone yourself. I'm not allowed to have an opinion on here without being an evil nazi that supports eugenics and genocide. Just insult anybody that disagrees with your religious based viewpoint. Sure thing. We're all just evil nazis! Um, just because they can fit in Texas doesn't mean that 300 million people would be just fine. That's one of the biggest fallacies going. Oh yeah, you can fit em all in Texas. Now sustain them and see how that goes. The US SHOULD NOT be populated as densely as Jersey or NYC all over the place, just because we fit. And population control isn't just for the US. We live on this planet called earth with 7 billion + people. Thanks for the laugh, though, essentially calling anybody who is pro choice, Hitler. LMAO!
Notes: Basic Data drawn from the U.S. Statistical Abstract, and World Almanac with projections and analysis by the Movement for a Better America. Abortion data based on published data from Guttmacher Institute. Projection and analysis and data provided by those religiously against abortion. No information proved about how yet came to their conclusion. Numbers without facts are bullshit.
Laugh all you want Barcs, you are a clown after all. You clearly support eugenic principles. The rationalizations you posted were the same as those used by the Nazis. There are other solutions to population growth. Your posts are such scatterbrained crap. Evolution has nothing to do with this. You keep citing science as what you believe in, but you are time and time again proving yourself scientifically illiterate. The Brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop in week 5. Weeks 6-7 the brain forms into five different areas with visible cranial nerves.
You forgot this part: "Abortion data based on published data from the Guttmacher Institute" About Guttmacher Institute: "Now in its fifth decade, the Guttmacher Institute continues to advance sexual and reproductive health rights trough an interrelated program of research, policy analysis and public education designed to generate new ideas, encourage enlightened public debate and promote sound policy and program development.... ....In 2013, the institute was awarded a prestigious population center grant by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)... Guttmacher is one of only two non-university based institutions out of the two dozen receiving such funding." Sounds legit
Everything I said was legitimate fact. Don't be upset with me because you dislike these facts. LOL at generalizing my view to "you clearly support eugenic principles". Do you even know what you are talking about? It isn't about a favorable race or gene pool, it's about saving somebody from having to live a terrible poverty stricken life. I don't care about the brain BEGINNING to develop. It doesn't function until week 10 as I clearly demonstrated with facts. You have no argument against anything I said other than, "my mommy said I was moving in the womb at 6 weeks" (something you clearly just made up on the spot), and "you must be a nazi and support genocide." Yeah because abortion is totally genocide. I'm talking about over population, not elimination of certain races. Try doing a little research on Eugenics and maybe you'll learn what it really means.
Sounds legit but pro-lifers disagree. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ro...d-for-discrimination-in-attacking-pro-life-in Edit: correct like below In any case they are drawing pro life conclusions from data published by a pro choice institution that pro life claim manipulates data. Fuck. http://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion...statistics-from-the-alan-guttmacher-institute
Yeah, your mom just told you a cute story. That's not true. Sorry. Go look what a six week old fetus looks like. You're a glorified tadpole at that point. Not even an inch long. Love this tired argument. Yes, we could all "fit" in Texas... but how would we live? Where would the food/water/resources come from? Do you realize how much acreage it takes to support a first-world lifestyle? Believe me, it's a hell of a lot more than Texas has to offer.
Population Research Institute: We are contacted all the time by people asking for how they can refute the arguments of those who believe that the world is overpopulated. So we have decided to create a short primer called “How to Debunk the Myth of Overpopulation in Three Easy Steps.” Before we start, however, let’s define overpopulation. Overpopulation describes a situation where the number of people exhausts the resources in a closed environment such that it can no longer support that population. Let’s imagine that our PRI offices were to suddenly become a closed environment, with nothing allowed in our out. Obviously, I and my colleagues would exhaust the available resources very quickly: The water cooler would be drained dry, the refrigerator would be emptied out, and the oxygen would be all used up. Obviously, my office has too many people for its natural resources, but I haven’t started trying to eliminate my co-workers to ensure my own survival. I haven’t launched a sterilization campaign against my younger colleagues or encouraged my older colleagues to jump out of the windows. Why? Well, of course I am constrained by Catholic moral teaching. But aside from that, I know that my office is not a closed environment. Neither are most instances cited by overpopulation zealots, such as crowded cities or poor countries. None of these are closed environments. Other instances of phony overpopulation occur when humans create artificially closed environments. If someone locked me in my office, most people wouldn’t blame my resulting demise on “the overpopulation of the office” but on the cruel person who locked me in. Similarly, if government policies prevent food from being transported to where it is needed, or distributed to those who are hungry, “overpopulation” is not to blame. It’s the policy, stupid. In addition, overpopulation is defined as a problem created by the numbers of people, not their behaviors. If every person demanded his or her own continent or island, the world would seem “overpopulated” very quickly. Let’s keep these things in mind as we consider the argument that the earth, as a closed environment, is overpopulated. Is Spaceship Earth (as they like to call it), running out of resources? Let’s evaluate: 1) “Food: there isn’t enough!” Since the time of Thomas Malthus, who lived in the early 1800s, doomsayers have gloomily predicted that mankind would outbreed its food supply, resulting in catastrophic famines. Yet the world currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, and there are only 7 billion of us. That is, with 7 billion human minds at work, we produce enough food for 10 billion human bodies.[1] Imagine how much food we can produce with 10 billion minds! “But there are still hungry people in the world!” Yes, hunger remains a problem in some parts of the world, but it is not caused by the number of people. Commenting on the recent Somali famine, Oxfam, an international humanitarian organization, stated, “Famines are not natural phenomena, they are catastrophic political failures." “Well, we got lucky with the Green Revolution, and food production shot up, but we can’t count on something like that to occur again!” Why not? There is no reason to think that we are running out of human ingenuity. If anything, a larger population means more opportunities for the kind of scientific collaboration and increased specialization that results in such scientific leaps forward. “Ok, but humans now eat higher up the food chain that we used to. We can’t keep that up and still have enough for everyone!” Sure, people in the developed nations eat more meat, which require much more energy input per calorie eaten than if we ate grains and plant proteins. But that doesn’t mean that we will run out of food. We are eating higher energy foods because they are relatively cheaper than they used to be—and prices don’t fall when goods are scarce. The falling price of high energy foods indicates that they are becoming more plentiful, not less so. According to the World Education Service, “world agriculture produces 17% more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago...This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day.” 2) “We are running out of water!” The earth is awash in water. Oceans cover 70 percent of the planet’s surface to an average depth of 6,000 feet. That’s why the earth looks blue from space. You cannot use up or destroy water; you can only change its state (from liquid to solid or gas) or contaminate it so that it is undrinkable. “That’s a great theory, but if I’m thirsty, theory doesn’t mean much to me. There is not enough fresh water for everyone!” There is! Since 1900, freshwater withdrawals (i.e. production of usable water) have increased much faster than the human population has increased. Freshwater withdrawals have increased seven-fold since 1900 while the world population has increased only four-fold.[2] This suggests our ability to access usable water increases faster than population growth. “Tell that to the people living in the Sahel!” You’re correct, lack of water is a serious humanitarian issue. But it is not an overpopulation issue. Water, although plentiful, can be difficult to move to those who need it, hence local water scarcity. As Karen Bakker (2003) states: "Water is one of the heaviest substances mobilized by human beings in their daily search for subsistence....Water is expensive to transport relative to value per unit volume, requiring large-scale capital investments in infrastructure networks which act as an effective barrier.” In other words, we need more dams, canals, and pipelines, not more abortion, contraception and sterilizations. 3) “But we’re growing exponentially!” Um,...No. We’re not. We are growing, but definitely not at an exponential rate. In fact, our rates of growth are declining. Between 1950 and 2000, the world population grew at a rate of 1.76%. Between 2000 and 2050, it is expected to grow by 0.77 percent.[3] So yes, because 0.77 is greater than zero, it is a positive growth rate, and the world population will continue to grow. Most of this growth will come from developing countries—their life expectancies are expected to shoot up in the next 50 years, contributing to their population growth. Africa’s growth is not something to worry about. Europe’s decline, however, is something to worry about. A UN report titled “World Population to 2300” paints a picture of Europe’s future if European fertility rates don’t rise above current levels: “The European Union, which has recently expanded to encompass 452-455 million people (according to 2000-2005 figures) would fall by 2300 to only 59 million. About half the countries of Europe would lose 95 per cent or more of their population, and such countries as the Russian Federation and Italy would have only 1 per cent of their population left.” In other words, the French, German, Italians and British will virtually cease to exist. Arrivederci, Roma! Other fun thoughts: - Demographers estimate that at least 20 billion people lived on earth between the years 8000 B.C. and 0 A.D. (That’s right, the idea that half of all people who have ever lived are alive currently is a myth!)[4] - Plankton make up 3 times more biomass than all 7 billion humans combined.[5] - Every man, woman, and child on earth could each have 5 acres of land. [6] - Every man, woman, and child on earth could each have a half acre of arable land.[7] - If we wanted to squeeze close, everyone in the world could stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the island of Zanzibar.[8] - About 48% of all people live in a country with below-replacement fertility.[9] - The global total fertility rate is 2.53 children per woman.[10] - By 2050, Nigeria is projected to have a larger population than the United States.[11] Endnotes http://m.pop.org/content/debunking-myth-overpopulation
You could also add that there are enough houses for sale in the United States to eliminate homelessness. You make a really good point. What the world would need to overcome the issues caused by what is widely refered to as "overpopulation" would require a level of compassion and cooperation greater than the world has ever seen. Much like what would need to happen to eliminate homelessness. All the scientific data in the world, for or against, is not going to change what is fundamentally a moral issue.
6 Weeks, over sized kidney bean, at 10 weeks there may be some arms and legs present but as far as the flipping in circles and swimming around claims, don't think a fetus ever does that
