A theory on abortion...

245

Comments

  • jenmarie
    jenmarie Posts: 95
    Brad and Angelina can adopt the really cute ones- they shouldn't have to work.
  • jenmarie
    jenmarie Posts: 95
    saveuplife wrote:
    The gov't and they will recoup a profit afterwards that can be used as the constituency feels fit.

    maybe i could get a few and train them to use the computer so that the next time PJ tickets go on sale via the 10 club I can have a few working to get MSG seats for me-
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    So, the compassion for the unborn seems to extend to the time when they are actually BORN. Got it.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    jenmarie wrote:
    maybe i could get a few and train them to use the computer so that the next time PJ tickets go on sale via the 10 club I can have a few working to get MSG seats for me-


    I get it. You don't like the idea. That's fine. Atleast I'm trying.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    digster wrote:
    So, the compassion for the unborn seems to extend to the time when they are actually BORN. Got it.


    With this idea, how so?

    You use an incubation period, in a hospital, once they are old enough they will be available to be adopted. How's that losing compassion? I honestly don't understand your point at all.
  • jenmarie
    jenmarie Posts: 95
    saveuplife wrote:
    I get it. You don't like the idea. That's fine. Atleast I'm trying.

    keep spinning those wheels!
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    saveuplife wrote:
    Yes. I'm saying reverse R v W, once this technology is feasible. This way, teh woman has the ability to rid herself of the "cells", the cells, fetus or baby (whatever you prefer) has the chance to "live", the gov't has the chance to make money and parents who can't have kids have the chance to "adopt" a young child at a lower price.

    It is crass. I'll admit it but I think that's because of the "selling" aspect. I truly dispise the notion of abortion, I think most do too, but they think it's necessary. I don't understand why something like this can't help everyone come to some form of middle ground.

    I only like this idea if:

    1. There is an adoptive family found for the baby before it is removed from the mother.

    2. We ask the baby and it says it wants the "chance to live".
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    jenmarie wrote:
    keep spinning those wheels!


    You too.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    jenmarie wrote:
    no- do you have any idea how many unwated babies already are out there in foster care.

    I already told him. 1/2 a million in the U.S., according to the adoption counseling class I took yesterday.
  • jenmarie
    jenmarie Posts: 95
    digster wrote:
    So, the compassion for the unborn seems to extend to the time when they are actually BORN. Got it.

    So much compassion in MORE parentless babies
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    scb wrote:
    We ask the baby and it says it wants the "chance to live".

    99% of all people want to live. The other less than 1% kill themselves.
  • meistereder
    meistereder Posts: 1,577
    Saveduplife, is this what your user name refers to? A saved up life? You've really been thinking about this for a while, eh?
    San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:
    With this idea, how so?

    You use an incubation period, in a hospital, once they are old enough they will be available to be adopted. How's that losing compassion? I honestly don't understand your point at all.

    If I was able to suspend my disbelief enough that foster care, private and public alike, could be about a hundred times less shitty than they are now, and if they were able to find about one million more supportive families PER YEAR to take the child that would have been otherwise aborted, then I would begin to accept your notion. But I don't have that active an imagination.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    saveuplife wrote:
    With this idea, how so?

    You use an incubation period, in a hospital, once they are old enough they will be available to be adopted. How's that losing compassion? I honestly don't understand your point at all.

    We'd have to build a whole hell of a lot of new hospitals to support this idea. Not to mention all the hospital staff that many say we don't have enough of already. Once again, quite costly...

    (If we had the resources to build more hospitals & train/hire more staff, shouldn't we be doing this already considering the unmet need of the people who are already born?)
  • Speakers
    Speakers Posts: 252
    saveuplife wrote:
    Once again. Malthus was wrong. Look him up. Look what he said. It's identical to what you are saying. It WAS why economics got the title the Dismal Science. Anyway, he's been proven wrong empirically time and time again. His theory, although seminal, is now not considered relevant at all.

    Um again. You're confused. This doesn't have anything to do with Malthus. Had China not instated the one child policy, they would have imploded as a country, unable to support the exponential growth they were experiencing in 1960s. Had that gone unchecked for the last 40 years, they would have been toast and unfortunately, the rest of the world would have to had to bear the consequences of the sheer numbers.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    meistereder wrote:
    Saveduplife, is this what your user name refers to? A saved up life? You've really been thinking about this for a while, eh?


    No, my name refers to a PJ lyric in light years. lol

    But, nice try. ;)
  • nothinghead
    nothinghead Posts: 270
    Not anything personal, but this might be one of the worst ideas I've heard in a really long time.

    We should harvest the unborn because we can't stop spending money? Because we've bankrupted social security? We can't seem to generate enough tax revenue, so we should just get more people? To offset the cost of developing this technology, caring for these children while they remain unadopted--like so many children who are already alive and living and desperately in need of someone to love and care for them--to cover their health benefits, and any other of the listless ways we seem to be relying on the government economically, in the hopes that some twenty years later they will pay for a college education, work their way out of debt, and then begin to pay down all the money we've mismanaged is ridiculous, cruel, and seriously lacking in any level of respect for the "sanctity of life."

    If our tax problem is that for every dollar thrown in, we're spending a buck fifty...adding more dollars doesn't get us even. If the problem was we didn't have enough workers right now we could loosen restrictions on immigration.

    Here's a better proposal: Mandatory abortions. No making new people until we sort out the billions already alive who struggle everyday for basic necessities.
  • meistereder
    meistereder Posts: 1,577
    saveuplife wrote:
    No, my name refers to a PJ lyric in light years. lol

    But, nice try. ;)


    Woops. :)
    San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    Speakers wrote:
    Um again. You're confused. This doesn't have anything to do with Malthus. Had China not instated the one child policy, they would have imploded as a country, unable to support the exponential growth they were experiencing in 1960s. Had that gone unchecked for the last 40 years, they would have been toast and unfortunately, the rest of the world would have to had to bear the consequences of the sheer numbers.


    No, I'm not. Read Malthus and read the criticism of his work.

    There's a steady state growth rate for everything. Our population is growing below it. As is Europe.

    Increasing our popuation growth is not a bad thing. If it was ridiculously excessive, yes, maybe. But, this example would not lead to a ridiculously excessive increase.

    Our population is held up right now by the baby boom generation. When their generation passes on, we will most likely see a significant decline in population growth.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    nothinghead wrote:
    Not anything personal, but this might be one of the worst ideas I've heard in a really long time.

    We should harvest the unborn because we can't stop spending money? Because we've bankrupted social security? We can't seem to generate enough tax revenue, so we should just get more people? To offset the cost of developing this technology, caring for these children while they remain unadopted--like so many children who are already alive and living and desperately in need of someone to love and care for them--to cover their health benefits, and any other of the listless ways we seem to be relying on the government economically, in the hopes that some twenty years later they will pay for a college education, work their way out of debt, and then begin to pay down all the money we've mismanaged is ridiculous, cruel, and seriously lacking in any level of respect for the "sanctity of life."

    If our tax problem is that for every dollar thrown in, we're spending a buck fifty...adding more dollars doesn't get us even. If the problem was we didn't have enough workers right now we could loosen restrictions on immigration.

    Here's a better proposal: Mandatory abortions. No making new people until we sort out the billions already alive who struggle everyday for basic necessities.


    Look at it this way.

    Population cohorts:

    Age 1-20 has 10 people
    Age 20-40 has 8 people
    Age 40-60 has 14 people
    Age 60-100 has 10 people

    When the last two brackets die off, we'll have plenty of jobs and not enough people. Also, as that 3rd bracket retires, we can't pay all these entitlements. because there's not large enough of a tax base.

    You'll see the gov't WILL institute population GROWTH policies.... these will happen very very soon.

Categories