A theory on abortion...

_

saveuplife wrote:

99% of all people want to live. The other less than 1% kill themselves.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO basis to state that 99% of fetuses want to live. (And I don't think you even have basis for stating that 99% of people want to live either.)

saveuplife

scb wrote:

You have ABSOLUTELY NO basis to state that 99% of fetuses want to live. (And I don't think you even have basis for stating that 99% of people want to live either.)

I do have a basis. Suicide statistics.

_

saveuplife wrote:

I do have a basis. Suicide statistics.

Suicides of fetuses?

Plus, plenty of people don't want to live who don't take an active enough role to kill themselves. Plenty more would have chosen to never be born, if given that choice.

nothinghead

saveuplife wrote:

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.

Alright, I'm half running out the door, so I don't have time to check some census information that would surely be pertinent to the conversation...

But what happens then when those numbers shift. The last two brackets die and we have even more people retiring, so we need even more people to pay for them, who in turn need even more people to pay for them...

At what point does that become unsustainable? Does it not make more sense for us to develop a long-term sustainable system for keeping our economy afloat and our retired population comfortably cared for?

Also, what are your thoughts on allowing higher levels of immigration to supplement the workforce (if you still believe adding more people to the bottom of this pyramid is the right solution)? The payoff would be more immediate, yes? Instead of waiting twenty or so years for our future workers to "mature" and incurring all of the costs associated with getting them to that stage...aren't there ready-made brown people over the age of 18 looking to pitch in?

digster

saveuplife wrote:

I do have a basis. Suicide statistics.

Well then that is based on the assumption that those are going to commit suicide will commit suicide no matter what; that it's "genetics", and that external factors do not contribute to the decision to take that action. Good attempt, though.

saveuplife

digster wrote:

Well then that is based on the assumption that those are going to commit suicide will commit suicide no matter what; that it's "genetics", and that external factors do not contribute to the decision to take that action. Good attempt, though.

Not an attempt at all. The statistic doesn't reference any specific person. It says 99% of people do not kill themselves. Clearly, that less than 1% doesn't like life. That's why they do what they do. If you expect the figures to change by a large margin even though they've been in the same relative range throughout history, you don't understand statistics.

Strangest Tribe

lol
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5934943&postcount=69

digster

saveuplife wrote:

Not an attempt at all. The statistic doesn't reference any specific person. It says 99% of people do not kill themselves. Clearly, that less than 1% doesn't like life. That's why they do what they do. If you expect the figures to change by a large margin even though they've been in the same relative range throughout history, you don't understand statistics.

Maybe with all that education, you've forgotten your common sense.

You are comparing suicide rates of people who are alive to fetuses, who have no cognitive brain function until the third trimester. Please think this through.

Gonzo1977

saveuplife wrote:

For pro-choicers...
What if (yes it's a what if question, sorry) we could extract a fetus at any time during a preganacy? The most you'd have to wait is up 1-2 months (most women just find out they are preganant around that time) to get it extracted. So the procedure is most likely similar to an abortion. Once the baby is extracted, it is placed in incubation and put up for adoption when Doctors see fit. It actually makes sense for the gov't to back and consider funding this plan. Why? Well, these are future tax payers. Not only that, they are future entrants into our labor markets. We are in deep amount of debt and this could help. Lastly, perhaps there would be a way for the government to be compensated for the incubation period, so they wouldn't lose anything on their investment. So the question is....Would you support this, if it was feasible?If not, why not?

First of all.

The technology is not in place to actually acomplish this; so it's kind of like Sci-Fi at this point.

But anyways...

A procedure like this would probably cost a small fortune and would likely be out of the reach of most of demographic of pregnant mothers likely to seek an abortion.

And you expect the government to fund this? on the sole believe that this child will survive the incubation perriod and become a "good" taxpayer? The government would never back this procedure based on the "risk" factor alone.

This is really just a scientific theory that has no proven ability to actually work. In fact the theory has been refuted based on the risk factor to the child alone.

The 1-2 month perriod of Pregnancy is the single most important and risky time of child development. Dettaching the Fetus from the Mother at this time could have major lasting health and development risks.

So we save the child...but highten the risk of producing under-developed and potentially challenged children.

Not to be callus but this won't exactly save taxpayers any money.

saveuplife

digster wrote:

Maybe with all that education, you've forgotten your common sense.

You are comparing suicide rates of people who are alive to fetuses, who have no cognitive brain function until the third trimester. Please think this through.

My point is that 99% of all people do not wish to kill themselves. You are saying that the fetus "may want to kill itself". That requires the fetus to have "thought", and also makes them alive. If they are alive and have thought, and we already know they are human... they will follow the same trends as I already mentioned within a small range of error. Thus, if that's the case, it can be logically assumed that less than 1% of all fetus would want to kill themselves. lol this is crazy.

saveuplife

Strangest Tribe wrote:

lol
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5934943&postcount=69

See, if you are serious. I agree with this. But, you are probably not serious.

SundaySilence

saveuplife wrote:

For pro-choicers....

What if (yes it's a what if question, sorry) we could extract a fetus at any time during a preganacy? The most you'd have to wait is up 1-2 months (most women just find out they are preganant around that time) to get it extracted. So the procedure is most likely similar to an abortion. Once the baby is extracted, it is placed in incubation and put up for adoption when Doctors see fit. It actually makes sense for the gov't to back and consider funding this plan. Why? Well, these are future tax payers. Not only that, they are future entrants into our labor markets. We are in deep amount of debt and this could help. Lastly, perhaps there would be a way for the government to be compensated for the incubation period, so they wouldn't lose anything on their investment.


So the question is....


Would you support this, if it was feasible?

If not, why not?

Less costly and with a more immediate result; just let a bunch of young immigrants into the country.

digster

saveuplife wrote:

My point is that 99% of all people do not wish to kill themselves. You are saying that the fetus "may want to kill itself". That requires the fetus to have "thought", and also makes them alive. If they are alive and have thought, and we already know they are human... they will follow the same trends as I already mentioned within a small range of error. Thus, if that's the case, it can be logically assumed that less than 1% of all fetus would want to kill themselves. lol this is crazy.

I am not saying anything. I'm not saying they are thinking. I am not saying anything.

All I am saying is you are comparing the suicide rates of adults to fetuses in the womb. I wish I knew how to bold that statement. I'm hoping you're just trying to make a point, and if so, go for it. If you really believe this, as I said, please think this through.

Gonzo1977

saveuplife wrote:

Increasing our popuation growth is not a bad thing./quote]

I'm sorry
But that is the single most naive statement I've ever heard.

Increased Population of Humans is one the biggest problems facing this planet today. Look at the damage we have done to the planet already. Look at the way we pollute in order to sustain ourselvs on this planet. We are bleeding it dry.

Increased population is not a GOOD THING.

MattyJoe

I still can't figure out where we have gotten this notion that it's a woman's "right" to have an abortion. Please someone explain this to me. As far as I can tell, abortion is murder. It is a human being. Even if not from the moment of conception, within a few months the embryo is without a doubt a living human, with a beating heart and functioning brain. As much as it may be an "inconvenience" that you're pregnant, you have no right to deny someone else's right to life, a choice that they cannot make for themselves. If we cannot guarantee that a person's right to life is protected from before they are even born, then we are essentially jeopardizing every person's right to life. I've heard stories where a baby was born extremely premature (like 2 months early, or something) and the hospital did everything it could to save the baby. Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?

Mrs.Vedder78

saveuplife wrote:

For pro-choicers....

What if (yes it's a what if question, sorry) we could extract a fetus at any time during a preganacy? The most you'd have to wait is up 1-2 months (most women just find out they are preganant around that time) to get it extracted. So the procedure is most likely similar to an abortion. Once the baby is extracted, it is placed in incubation and put up for adoption when Doctors see fit. It actually makes sense for the gov't to back and consider funding this plan. Why? Well, these are future tax payers. Not only that, they are future entrants into our labor markets. We are in deep amount of debt and this could help. Lastly, perhaps there would be a way for the government to be compensated for the incubation period, so they wouldn't lose anything on their investment.


So the question is....


Would you support this, if it was feasible?

If not, why not?

as I was reading this all I could think of was the big incubators in The Matrix

fugawzi

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?

His name is actually saveuplife not saved up life. When I see his name it makes me think of the lyrics from Light Years "no time to be void, or SAVE UP ON LIFE, ahh, you gotta spend it all..." That's my assumption.

Mrs.Vedder78

MattyJoe wrote:

Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?

You should educate yourself before you have an opinion on it.
Senator Obama doesnt support a woman having an abortion at 7 months or 8 months pregnant just because she feels like it he does support it if the mother's health is in danger BIG DIFFERENCE .... woman walking into a clinic at 7 months wanting an abortion Senators Obama says NO woman in a hospital and baby needs to be aborted so mother doesn't die yes.

READ people READ!!! Dont just repeat stuff you hear like sheep! :rolleyes:

MattyJoe

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

You should educate yourself before you have an opinion on it.
Senator Obama doesnt support a woman having an abortion at 7 months or 8 months pregnant just because she feels like it he does support it if the mother's health is in danger BIG DIFFERENCE .... woman walking into a clinic at 7 months wanting an abortion Senators Obama says NO woman in a hospital and baby needs to be aborted so mother doesn't die yes.

READ people READ!!! Dont just repeat stuff you hear like sheep! :rolleyes:

Fine.

Regardless, the overall point of my post still stands. Abortion is not a "right" anymore than it's someone's "right" to kill someone for whatever reason.

When it comes to the health of the mother, I will concede, because in that case it would be an issue of the lesser of two evils. Is it worse that the mother should die or the baby should die? That's a question that needs to be addressed and decided with the utmost care at the time.

But there are still thousands of abortions every year which have nothing to do with the mother's life being in danger which need to be addressed.

Jeremy1012

MattyJoe wrote:

I still can't figure out where we have gotten this notion that it's a woman's "right" to have an abortion. Please someone explain this to me. As far as I can tell, abortion is murder. It is a human being. Even if not from the moment of conception, within a few months the embryo is without a doubt a living human, with a beating heart and functioning brain. As much as it may be an "inconvenience" that you're pregnant, you have no right to deny someone else's right to life, a choice that they cannot make for themselves. If we cannot guarantee that a person's right to life is protected from before they are even born, then we are essentially jeopardizing every person's right to life. I've heard stories where a baby was born extremely premature (like 2 months early, or something) and the hospital did everything it could to save the baby. Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?

It is illegal to abort a baby after the point at which it is 'viable' as a self-sufficient person. Until this point it is part of the mother and couldn't survive separate from the mother, therefore it's definitely her right. It's not a life of it's own. You could make a case that after this point it would be murder, although I'd disagree, but before this point, it's not. It's really, really not. Cognitive brain processes don't even start until after the stage past which abortion is illegal. You're terminating something that is no more a life than a plant.