Comment from: Jam [Visitor]

I myself am anti-abortion, but pro-birth control (it is very clear to me that the research supports more birth control equals less abortions), pro-sex education, pro-welfare, pro-education, pro-rehabilitation/anti-death penalty (unless we’re talking about a mafia boss or dictator or someone who can still carry out crimes, including murder, from a jail cell), and super pro-adoption, to the point where I want to adopt children myself whether I get married in the future or not.

I also would allow for abortions in the case of danger to the mother’s health, and rape (even though I believe that is a moral grey area; personally I wouldn’t hold a fetus accountable for its fathers’ sins), and I currently don’t consider contragestive medication to be abortiofacient. However, after a certain point you’re carrying a unique being with its own blood type and DNA and beating little heart. I think it’s infanticide to destroy that unless there’s something seriously wrong with it (ectopic pregnancy, hopelessly diseased fetus, etc).

I don’t know what I think about overpopulation. It’s probably a problem, but not as much of a problem as we would take it to be. And still, once a population is westernised, modernised, its birth rate drops dramatically. Japan has a negative birth rate, along with a lot of European countries, and America is barely breaking even. I think the answer to the problem is to bring the world up to a decent standard of living (which includes birth control, free education, etc), and the problem will largely take care of itself while most families are able to choose their 2.5 kids and white picket fence instead of popping out babies left and right.

04/08/12 @ 06:51
Comment from: diana [Member]

Hi, Jamie! I knew I could count on you to offer some good food for thought.

I agree that there is a point where destroying the fetus is destroying a human being. The usual abortion discussions focus on when the whiskers (so to speak) become a beard. I’m basically accepting that there’s a point where it’s infanticide, or even “murder,” if you choose to frame it that way. Like I said, I know this makes me a monster in most people’s eyes, but to me, that isn’t the issue. The issue is that we have too many people who require the limited resources available on our “island,” and murder is necessary to maintain the current situation. It’s just a matter of who we murder to do it.

It isn’t a nice choice, I agree, but it’s a choice we must make nonetheless. If we refuse to acknowledge it (as we have been doing), we are still making a choice. Our children’s children will fight bloody wars for control of what’s left of the food.

I accept that some societies have lapsed into a negative birth rate, but pretty much everyone needs to get on board with that to bring the population back to sustainable levels. I urge you to read Collapse; it’s quite a well-written expose.

I think the more educated a society, the fewer children it produces, so yes…I’m completely behind education as a means of population control.

I am curious, though: why are you anti-abortion? Because it’s infanticide?


04/08/12 @ 07:41
Comment from: Sarah [Visitor]

This is just to say: If you ran for president, I’d vote for you.

04/08/12 @ 14:57
Comment from: Hinermad [Visitor]


I think the resistance to sex education is actually resistance to state sex education, since the state’s take on it is usually determined by public health concerns - the same concerns I think you’re saying we need to deal with. I don’t have a problem with that personally, because it matches what we planned to teach our kids anyway. (With supplementation. We stopped short of making Fatal Attraction required viewing, but we did teach the kids what can happen if you get too close to someone you don’t know well.)

Like a friend of mine said, our jobs as parents are to raise adults. They’ll make their own decisions eventually; we just tried to make sure they knew what they needed to know when the time came. I think what catches people off guard is that time comes a lot sooner than they expect.


04/09/12 @ 10:46
Comment from: Jam [Visitor]

Yes, I am anti-abortion because it is infanticide, and also because it is not at all woman-friendly. Maybe there are some situations where abortion is better for the woman than carrying to term, but abortion is never GOOD for women so. It hurts them.

I’m not sure I buy the whole “the earth is gonna explode with people ~~~ ” yet, but I do admit ignorance on the subject. It is simply instinct and cynicism at the moment that leads me to believe it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. The primary problems, from my gut feeling, are probably educational and technological (bringing farms to desert regions for example) rather than pure population control and all that. idk. Who wrote “Collapse” so I can try to find it in a library or something?

04/13/12 @ 19:01
Comment from: diana [Member]

I’m pretty sure I could argue effectively that abortion is better for women than giving birth is, Jamie–provided it isn’t done with the proverbial clothes hanger in an alley.

I was asking for clarification on the “infanticide” bit because you did allow for abortion in some cases. I’m guessing you believe that an infant’s life is worth as much as an adult’s. (I think this is perfectly rational, but you may not want to ally yourself with me.)

Collapse is by Jared Diamond. He wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel (which I strongly suspect you’ve heard of and if you haven’t read it, I can’t recommend it enough, but it isn’t necessarily relevant here).


04/13/12 @ 22:32

Form is loading...

« what are you doing about the gaps in your education?oberammergau tomorrow »