• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your general opinion on laws restricting abortion?

What is your opinion on laws restricting abortion?

  • They are essential to preserving the sanctity of life

    Votes: 15 17.4%
  • I don't agree with abortion but I don't think it should be banned

    Votes: 18 20.9%
  • they miss the real argument, that people should have total bodily autonomy over themselves

    Votes: 18 20.9%
  • they are a bad faith attempt at controlling women

    Votes: 32 37.2%
  • not sure

    Votes: 3 3.5%

  • Total voters
    86
Reading through the thread, I'm surprised how many people believe the earth is overcrowded, or that more people are a liability. Neither of those are true.

It would be standing room only, but every person on the planet could easily fit in an area the size of Rhode Island.

Moreover, additional people are a benefit. As long as people are economically fairly free, i.e. not living in a leftist sh**hole, virtually everyone produces way more than they consume. Plus more people means more chances for another Einstein, Mozart, da Vinci, etc.

World population during da Vinci's life was______ 450 M
World population during Mozart's life was______ 770M
World population during Einstein's life was______ 2,584 B
Today's world population is__________________ 7,700B

The world population has tripled since Einstein live in 1950 That is not a sustainable rate of increase.

After you get tired of standing in Rhode Island you might like to sit down in a library and read something scientific on the relationship between population, resources, pollution and sustainability.

worldPopulationGraph_year1000to2000_oceanworld-tamu-edu_405x426.gif
 
The world population has tripled since Einstein live in 1950 That is not a sustainable rate of increase.

How do you know?

After you get tired of standing in Rhode Island you might like to sit down in a library and read something scientific on the relationship between population, resources, pollution and sustainability.

Hmm, good idea. Let's start with Thomas Malthus, who, in 1798, believed population growth is exponential, while food and resources grow on a linear basis, hence widespread famine is inevitable:

Malthus said:
Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

Sounds as scary as that graph you posted, but it didn't quite come true. Let's fast forward to Professor Paul Ehrlich, from his best-seller, The Population Bomb:

Paul Ehrlich said:
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

Yet another failed prediction. Why? Because they both drastically underestimated the productive capabilities of capitalism.

That's right, it's the C word again. It's why you have all those luxuries you take for granted. It's why billions of people have food, clothing, transportation, and housing. It's why things on net keep getting better despite government making everything worse.
 
World population during da Vinci's life was______ 450 M
World population during Mozart's life was______ 770M
World population during Einstein's life was______ 2,584 B
Today's world population is__________________ 7,700B

The world population has tripled since Einstein live in 1950 That is not a sustainable rate of increase.

After you get tired of standing in Rhode Island you might like to sit down in a library and read something scientific on the relationship between population, resources, pollution and sustainability.

View attachment 67267027

Correction world population during Einstein's life should read 2.5B. not 2,584B
Todays world population should read 7.7B not 7,700B
The rate of increase is not THAT bad. My bad.

When Marthus and Ehrlich were predicting disaster for the human race the rate of increase even in Ehrlich's day, (1968), was not the same as it has been in the last 20 years. Check out the chart. Since about 1970 the rate has increased astronomically over the rate of increase between 800AD and 1970

BlogImage180108ChinaIncomeanchor.webp

We can live like the Chinese packed into cities with no green spaces, where a town of 800,000 is called a little country town. There is a quality of life issue, do we want to live like the Chinese.

Beijing-China-Photoraph-Homes-Rich-Neighbourhood-Soviet-Housing.webp
 
Last edited:
So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir. Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face?
So, a grandmotherly looking woman in sensible shoes comes up to St. Peter and he says, what's your story? And she says to St.Peter: " Well, we were in a stable long term relationship with two lovely children aged 3 and 6. We were getting by pretty well, a manageable credit card debt, car kinda old but paid off, fair rent, saving for a family camping vacation, the boy doing good in school learning to read. His mom taking care of the kids while I worked. Then his company moved to Indonesia, I was the bread winner, the brakes went on the car, the rent went up $10/month, his mom broke her hip and couldn't take care of the kids and the birth control failed. He looked for work, took care of his mother, did some of the cooking, but his skills didn't match any jobs and mom got word and took more of his time. We'd fixed the car so I could get to work. We'd used up his severance pay, all the vacation savings, maxed out the credit card and applied for food stamps. It was pretty bad, there were arguments, the kids felt the tension, the boy got in trouble at school and was doing bad in reading. The girl got whiny, clingy and demanding. We sat down one night and looked at our situation; if we went ahead with the pregnancy I would be out of work for 4 months and probably lose my job; the outfit I worked for doesn't hold a job open because you had a baby. There were just too many responsibilities, too little time, security, money, energy, and help. We agreed that adding another child would hurt everyone in the family. At 8 weeks I went to PP and ended the pregnancy. It was so sad, I cried, but the family survived the next two, very bad, years pretty well. It was the best decision for all of us. We added a little girl three years later when he got a job, it was less pay than the old job, but I got a new job, with a raise, health insurance, no paid maternity leave but a promise to hold the job open. We've saved up enough for that vacation and had a wonderful time camping at Yosemite, the kids loved it. Every time I look at my son and daughters and their kids and see how our family is making it I thank God for PP."
And St. Peter said "Good thinking, come on in.




So next day another woman comes up to St. Peter. She died of cirrhosis of the liver. St. Peter says what's your story and she says, " Well, I had a daughter at 17 and quit school She lives with my mom and sister. I work the bar in a tavern. It's pretty good pay. I get good tips because I know how to flirt it up. And I need them, my employer wants his girls to look good; so my clothes, make up and jewelry are expensive. I like partying and good times, that's an expense too , but I deserve them. It's hard work being nice to the slobs that show up at the bar wanting to be chatted up. My boyfriend then didn't have a job so he moved into my one room apt till he could find work. It's really crowded with all his stuff and mine. There's no kitchen. I have a coffee maker and an electric fry pan but I don't know how to cook so mostly we eat out. I pay for it. He won't use protection and I don't like how pills make me feel. I got pregnant. I was pretty pissed at him and threw him out. I was tired of him anyway. Being pregnant would be the pits. My boss said it was beginning to show and he'd fire me when I got big. It would put an end my life and my mom doesn't want to take care of another baby. Someone told me about PP. I went and got my boyfriends baby aborted.
And St. Peter says, Come on in, I'm not very happy about your drinking but that canceled out by not bringing a child into your life.
So, are we to understand from these plagiarized morality tales that you think inconvenience justifies taking human life? Does this represent "the morality and intelligence of your solutions"?
 
His point was that the legalization of both abortion and slavery is/was "bad law." He recognizes both as immoral practices legalized for political reasons. You half agree with him.
I know what his point was. He didn't make it. What he said was:
Stupid people don't know that slaves were once embryos therefore abortion and slavery are bad laws.

It follows that:

Soon all the judges on the Supreme Court will be moral therefore anti-abortion Americans will be able to make legal challenges


Multiple non-sequiturs don’t add up to one complete sequitur.
No, you seem stuck in a groove here, citizen. You keep missing or misrepresenting his point in your posts. I wonder why this is?
His point, again, was that abortion, like slavery, is immorality protected by "bad law" -- that the law in both cases protects immoral practice.
Why can't you hear him?
 
So, are we to understand from these plagiarized morality tales that you think inconvenience justifies taking human life? Does this represent "the morality and intelligence of your solutions"?

Plagiarized? From whom?
 
No, you seem stuck in a groove here, citizen. You keep missing or misrepresenting his point in your posts. I wonder why this is?
His point, again, was that abortion, like slavery, is immorality protected by "bad law" -- that the law in both cases protects immoral practice.
Why can't you hear him?

Again, I'm fully aware of what he was trying to say. His garbled sentences and attempt at logic did not say what he thought he was saying.
 
Plagiarized? From whom?
My sincere apologies. I thought you'd omitted the link.
But that's quite an effort on your part on behalf of legal immorality!
So, are we to understand from these original morality tales of yours that you think inconvenience justifies taking human life?
Does this represent "the morality and intelligence of your solutions"?
 
Again, I'm fully aware of what he was trying to say. His garbled sentences and attempt at logic did not say what he thought he was saying.
His writing was clear enough to me. I wonder if there's a name for a syndrome in which an uneasy conscience compromises reading comprehension.
 
God gave you brains so you could sort things out for yourself instead calling on Him every time you hit a bump in your road. St. Peter will judge you on the morality and intelligence of your solutions, not on how often you cast your cares on Him.

I'm pretty confident my faith will help me make good decisions [like not killing for convenience]

“Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:6-7).
 
I'm pretty confident my faith will help me make good decisions [like not killing for convenience]

“Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:6-7).

"In view of the fact that God limited the intelligence of man it seems unfair that He did not also limit stupidity"
Konrad Adenauer
 
Rolls eyes.
Rolls Royce.
How about answering the question put to you? To wit:
...So, are we to understand from these original morality tales of yours that you think inconvenience justifies taking human life?
Does this represent "the morality and intelligence of your solutions"?
 
The point, the moral, the implication. Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for.

So with all this massive intelligence, superior erudition and logic beyond the understanding of mere mortals that you keep telling us you have you don't understand two pretty simple minded homilies?

"An Askhole is someone who asks a lot of questions but never listens to the answers." A-non-emouse
 
So with all this massive intelligence, superior erudition and logic beyond the understanding of mere mortals that you keep telling us you have you don't understand two pretty simple minded homilies?

"An Askhole is someone who asks a lot of questions but never listens to the answers." A-non-emouse
Ok. You refuse to account for your homilies. I can't say as I blame you. If I held your view, I'd avoid spelling it out at every turn.
We'll note this and move on. We'll remind you of your evasion when it seems appropriate.
Peace out.
 
Who's avoiding anything. Here is your question:
So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir. Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face?

Here is the answer to your question:

So, a grandmotherly looking woman in sensible shoes comes up to St. Peter and he says, what's your story? And she says to St.Peter: " Well, we were in a stable long term relationship with two lovely children aged 3 and 6. We were getting by pretty well, a manageable credit card debt, car kinda old but paid off, fair rent, saving for a family camping vacation, the boy doing good in school learning to read. His mom taking care of the kids while I worked. Then his company moved to Indonesia, I was the bread winner, the brakes went on the car, the rent went up $10/month, his mom broke her hip and couldn't take care of the kids and the birth control failed. He looked for work, took care of his mother, did some of the cooking, but his skills didn't match any jobs and mom got word and took more of his time. We'd fixed the car so I could get to work. We'd used up his severance pay, all the vacation savings, maxed out the credit card and applied for food stamps. It was pretty bad, there were arguments, the kids felt the tension, the boy got in trouble at school and was doing bad in reading. The girl got whiny, clingy and demanding. We sat down one night and looked at our situation; if we went ahead with the pregnancy I would be out of work for 4 months and probably lose my job; the outfit I worked for doesn't hold a job open because you had a baby. There were just too many responsibilities, too little time, security, money, energy, and help. We agreed that adding another child would hurt everyone in the family. At 8 weeks I went to PP and ended the pregnancy. It was so sad, I cried, but the family survived the next two, very bad, years pretty well. It was the best decision for all of us. We added a little girl three years later when he got a job, it was less pay than the old job, but I got a new job, with a raise, health insurance, no paid maternity leave but a promise to hold the job open. We've saved up enough for that vacation and had a wonderful time camping at Yosemite, the kids loved it. Every time I look at my son and daughters and their kids and see how our family is making it I thank God for PP."
And St. Peter said "Good thinking, come on in.


So next day another woman comes up to St. Peter. She died of cirrhosis of the liver. St. Peter says what's your story and she says, " Well, I had a daughter at 17 and quit school She lives with my mom and sister. I work the bar in a tavern. It's pretty good pay. I get good tips because I know how to flirt it up. And I need them, my employer wants his girls to look good; so my clothes, make up and jewelry are expensive. I like partying and good times, that's an expense too , but I deserve them. It's hard work being nice to the slobs that show up at the bar wanting to be chatted up. My boyfriend then didn't have a job so he moved into my one room apt till he could find work. It's really crowded with all his stuff and mine. There's no kitchen. I have a coffee maker and an electric fry pan but I don't know how to cook so mostly we eat out. I pay for it. He won't use protection and I don't like how pills make me feel. I got pregnant. I was pretty pissed at him and threw him out. I was tired of him anyway. Being pregnant would be the pits. My boss said it was beginning to show and he'd fire me when I got big. It would put an end my life and my mom doesn't want to take care of another baby. Someone told me about PP. I went and got my boyfriends baby aborted.
And St. Peter says, Come on in, I'm not very happy about your drinking but that's canceled out by having the wisdom to not bring a child into your questionable life style .

What is it you don't understand?
 
Who's avoiding anything. Here is your question:


Here is the answer to your question:



What is it you don't understand?
The point, the moral, the implication. Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for.
 
The point, the moral, the implication. Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for.

Morals are subjective and the as many people understand the slavery reference isnt actually analogous.
 
So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir. Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face?

The point, the moral, the implication. Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for.

"The point, the moral, the implication." That's not a question. It isn't even a complete sentence.
 
Morals are subjective and the as many people understand the slavery reference isnt actually analogous.

Morals aren't subjective. You are correct on the slavery reference. Slaves had the choice of running away. Aborted children have no choice.
 
1.) Morals aren't subjective.
2.) You are correct on the slavery reference.
3.) Slaves had the choice of running away. Aborted children have no choice.

1.) yes they factually are. If you disagree by all means please post a factual list of objective morals and prove it. you wont cause you cant
2.) yes i know
3.) so lets make the woman the slave instead . . brilliant LOL and thats exactly why any slavery reference completely fails.
Slaves are not INSIDE another huming bine ana risk to their life and health
 
Back
Top Bottom