What your daughter may soon be sporting

[GeminiRising]

It is a pretty tasteless t-shirt.

[Kyran]

Originally posted by Samildanach,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Samildanach,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>To Answer you Kyran, now that I can see you have gone completely off the deep end. Point one, what I want is the most relevant thing in the world to me and what I want to do with my developing bunch of cells is up to me, hell I'll feed it to the dog if I want also I don't remember saying I supported freedom of choice.[/b]

I'm going off the deep end? I'm not the one talking about feeding an embryo to a dog. Again, answer my question. Why don't you give it the choice of leaving your family? I don't remember you saying you supported freedom of choice either.

Originally posted by Samildanch,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Samildanch,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't remember the argument being about bringing a man or women into the world, its about aborting a fetus which has more or less the intelligence of a banana on a good day.[/b]

The argument was this: your claim to those developing cells is null and void.

Originally posted by Samildanch, I'm not wanting to get drawn into hypothetical scenarios but seeing as you are already there consider the opposite. I adopt out the child they sell him for cash to some guy who likes making child pornography films for a few bucks. He grows up really fucked up and decides to become the next serial killer around the corner from your house and he takes a dislike to you but he likes you daughter though....but you don't know that cause hes the quiet type.

Unreal scenario. You said I wouldn't know the guy's personality. Regardless, there is at least the snowflake's chance in the 66th level of hell that a live child will escape the cruelties of men. Your scenario can be simplified to this statement:

Abortion is justified because something BAD might happen to the child.

Argument from adverse consequences. Refuted.

Originally posted by Samildanch, To give away my child is just unthinkable because he ,she would be far to precious but to abort a fetus that has not yet become a child is completely viable. It comes down to how much you care about how your children are brought up.

No it's not unthinkable. Look at the choices:
A) Give away the child
B) Terminate the child

If you love him, let him go. There are only two things guaranteed in life: death and taxes. And believe me, I know it's easy to sit here and tell you such a thing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Nuitana, I'm completely and necessarily pro-choice in a society that is ungenerous toward those who have been born, where from the moment of birth, the older you get, the less valuable you become. I see abortion as a private matter and a personal/medical decision, not something to publicize. However, it should be publicized that some women have abortions because they are poor, would love to have their babies and stay home, be responsible and raise them, but there are no welfare programs that allow that. For some women, having an abortion is far more responsible than bearing a child who will be in day care while mom's working a job she does not want. In a society that does not respect motherhood/homemaking as a valid career choice, it seems hypocritical to call women who have abortions murderers, when their born children are not considered worthy enough to have a full-time mom.

Ok let's dissect your argument.

Society:
1. is ungenerous towards those who have been born.
2. does not respect motherhood/homemaking as a valid career choice
3. does not give welfare to women for breeding
4. does not consider children worthy enough to have a full-time mom

Now let me turn your "what society doesn't do" around on you.

1. It does not ritually sacrifice your children to any deity.
2. It does not routinely demand your children for sex slavery.
3. It does not experiment genetically on your children.

We can agree that society does not do any of these things. But one thing I am not going to let you get by with is this statement:

I'm completely and necessarily pro-choice in a society that is ungenerous toward those who have been born, where from the moment of birth, the older you get, the less valuable you become.

You are not "necessarily" pro-choice. You have the option to put your children up for adoption, unless said pregnancy is going to cost you your life. It is not the government's or society's responsibility to take care of anyone. Your assertions rely upon this presumption. You can't blame society or society's problems for your actions.

By the way, could you please describe what is hypocritical about defining a woman who had an abortion (not a justified one) as a murderer? When a mugger beats up a pregnant woman and her child dies prematurely, he gets called a murderer. So logically, a woman who bashed her own womb with construction tools would equate to the same thing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POOEY, welcome back.

Actually no I haven't done a per year study on abortions like the one I produced several pages ago. But what is the point of demanding more statistics from me?

You're still not telling me the approximate number of people that can live on this planet, or a measure of how much resources we can consume to perpetuate. But don't bother. The law of entropy dictates that all resources will eventually be consumed and used up. Life on this planet has an end. I gave you plenty of time to use the overpopulation card, but without numbers and statistics I am forced to interpret your adjective descriptions. I'm not gonna do it.

I said that we had enough resources to sustain all people, you asked if that were so in real life. How many people die per year from hunger? What is it 12 million? And we have 6 billion people. That's pretty efficient distribution of food, to the tune of 99.8%, wouldn't you agree? Now let's see...840 million undernourished people worldwide, and only 12 million die per year. Hunger is predominately a south-African problem, and charities agree that all nations possess enough potential to feed their current populations. I won't go into why they don't.

Source:
http://www.careusa.org/campaigns/world-hunger/facts.asp

Originally posted by Pooeypants, You made a figure earlier of something like 48 million abortions per year, do you retract that?

No I do not. My source was listed. I pulled it off of about.com. Do you accept the fact or do you wish to challenge it?

<!--QuoteBegin-Pooeypants,@
Err, stopping a life from forming isn't killing is it?[/quote]

Course not Pooey. As long as you don't let sperm fertilize an egg, meaning to use contraceptives, no life is formed.

<!--QuoteBegin-Pooeypants,
I asked for realistic answers, if you have none to supply then you do not have to reply, it is that simple.[/quote]

No no.

You raised the bar. I'm trying to argue the pro-life position on abortion, not overpopulation, hunger, or any other world problems you can come up with. Most of the time I let that slide as mere dialogue, but sometimes I'll use it as an opportunity to freshen up on some facts. Let me illustrate why it's absurd.

Suppose I asked you to tell me what our government is going to do about world hunger or overpopulation. Suppose I then further said, that since these problems exist, and that babies can grow up into truckers, that they "help" to fight hunger; so we can't abort them. Also, I could say that education is necessary to solving overpopulation, that abortion reduces the amount of education distributed; as such is counterproductive to solving overpopulation.

In both these arguments, I'm demanding a solution to a different problem, and using my position to affirm that it's necessary to them. This forces an opponent to solve the other issues before he can argue against the original one. That's why it's raising the bar & moving the goalposts.

Overpopulation is irrelevant and off-topic. I gave you the opportunity to show it's relevancy to abortion.

1. If you're going to say that disallowing abortion will cause more overpopulation problems, that's Camel Nose. Your argument implies this is where your logic leads, because you said abortion helps overpopulation. This is assuming the inverse (x -> y and -x -> -y).

2. If you refute that objection and mean "No, abortion is bad, but overpopulation is worse, therefore we need abortion." This is Comparative Best/Worse.

Now don't think I'm straw-manning just because I'm poking around your argument's logic structure to figure out which one is and isn't yours. I'm just boxing your position in on the playing field so that I know exactly what to argue with.

3. Even if you say "Abortion is neither good/bad, it helps overpopulation" then I can come back with "War is neither good/bad, it helps overpopulation." These arguments go nowhere, because now anything that qualifies as helping overpopulation (essentially the termination of human life) is acceptable. It would be an inconsistency error to deny that.

At best, you can pull out of making ANY ambiguous assertions by saying only "Abortion helps the overpopulation problem." To which I say, "So does suicide, murder (of the born), war, starvation, plagues, and euthanasia." We can't fight AIDS, famine, pestilence, or war if we're worried about overpopulation. None of these are acceptable solutions.

I'm not going to trail off the abortion topic to discuss overpopulation with you any further. Start a thread on it.

Fallacies:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/langc/skills/arg-det.html

Try again.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by GeminiRising, It is a pretty tasteless t-shirt.

Seriously, I agree with you. Yes, it is a one liner, but I'm going to let that one go, simply because he got a complete point across. Even if I did not agree with the sentement, I'd let it go.

Indeed GR, if I see a girl wearing it, I will probably cry, unless it is my best friend's ex, then I will not be surprised enough to tear.

[Nuitana]

Kyran wrote:
"I support the idea of letting unborn children have a choice in this matter. Abortionists do not want the unborn to have a choice."

Why is it that you seem more concerned with the choices of the unborn, at the expense of those who have been born? Wanting or not wanting the unborn to have a choice is irrelevant - the unborn have no choice.

Kyran wrote:
"Again, let me suggest adoption as the viable alternative. At least in those cases, mothers who can't afford children would be able to sustain their lives and then attempt to reclaim custody. This would be responsible."

I don't see adoption as a positive or responsible thing in most cases; I see it as a last resort when there are absolutely no options. In fact, no options would mean the child would be an orphan - which is the best justification for child adoption. Adopting an orphan is a noble thing. Actively desiring to adopt, and waiting with hope for some unfortunate person to give away her child or have it taken from her, seems something other than noble. For a child to have to be adopted is a tragedy; it is nothing to celebrate or desire.

Kyran wrote:
"It is not the government's or society's responsibility to take care of anyone."

Neither is it the government's or society's responsibility to dictate to a woman whether she will bear a child or have access to medical procedures such as abortion. The decision is the woman's responsibility and choice. For said government/society to declare that it is not their responsibililty to care for anyone, yet insist that women not have the option of abortion, is exceedingly cruel.

Kyran wrote:
"No it's not unthinkable. Look at the choices:
A) Give away the child
B) Terminate the child

If you love him, let him go."

Give away the child refers to a born human being. Terminate the child is wrong usage in your options list, as an unborn is not a child other than in potential and imagination. In general - yes, there are always exceptions - but giving away one's child is not love, not responsible, and certainly not unselfish.

Kyran wrote:
"By the way, could you please describe what is hypocritical about defining a woman who had an abortion (not a justified one) as a murderer?"

When a person says that there should be no entitlements or sense of entitlement, that the needy deserve no charity, welfare, medical care, etc, it seems that the person does not care about his fellow human beings. If this person is very concerned and a champion of the rights of unborn imaginary people, but thinks it is okay for a born child to be given away rather than guaranteed that lack of funds will never be a reason to be deprived of his own family, it implies lack of respect for his fellow human beings. Murder is a hateful thing, and having an attitude of deprivation toward others is hateful as well. I see nothing hateful about a woman choosing abortion, when she knows it to be the best option.

You also seem to make a distinction between an abortion and a "justified" abortion. I get the idea that you would say that the justification would be someone's opinion other than the woman's.

[Lava]

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Kyran, Feel free to let us know the secret as to how many human beings this planet CAN support anytime now.

There is no secret to it, an acceptable figure is one where we can all live in an equal standard of fair living and at a size where we won't consume our resources too quickly, take up too much land nor destroy too much wildlife.[/b][/quote]

We will never live with equal standard of living, whatever the number is, great or small.

> and at a size where we won't consume our resources too quickly,

too quickly for what?

> take up too much land nor destroy too much wildlife.

Take up too much land for what? Destroy too much wildlife for what? Without those qualifications, the statements have little meaning. Its like saying 'it will cost you less' but not saying less than what.

What is your ballpartk figure for the max population size that is not 'overpopulation', and how do you reach it? I'm surprised you havent seen this concept is a dead duck yet.


Regards, Lava

[Lava]

The reality is we can produce all the resources we need with much larger population than today. Humans are productive, not just consumers. There are enough ways around things like land limits to sustain several times the population size. Bear in mind that quadrupling population size would also quadruple labour output and number of experts.

How do we deal with limits of housing land? We have plenty already. If the US became as densely populated as Japan is today, the population it could house would be absolutely enormous.

How do we deal with limits of food production? A number of ways, including but not limmited to:
1. meat prices would skyrocket, and most people going vegetarian would greatly increase the available food per person (meat is incredibly inefficient)
2. turning the vast tracts of currently unused land into farms
3. high rise farms
4. continuing increases in yield per acre due to technology progress
5. home growing, including eg growing food plants on houses, which takes up just a few inches of garden space
6. movement towards more space efficient food sources such as sprouts replacing some salads, beans and cereals replacing meats, etc
7. dual purpose gardening, where plants that are both pretty and edible become popular.
8. turning deserts into farms, that technology has existed for decades.


Regards, Lava

[Comrade]

Yeah, havent any of you been out to the southwest?

It is EMPTY. There is not a bathroom for hundreds of miles sometimes (not kidding). Ugh, I hate travelling.

[Lava]

multiple post removed

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Comrade, Yeah, havent any of you been out to the southwest? It is EMPTY. There is not a bathroom for hundreds of miles sometimes (not kidding). Ugh, I hate travelling.

Comrade, not too much water available for flushing out West. Ya' just gotta do like the coyotes do...

[voyager]

Why does this topic seen to focus on he female? If he "other half" of the pregencie kept his you know what in his pants here would be no ( or at least very little) abortion problem.

Wheather you are pro-choice or anti abortion the plea is he same, government should do something to resolve the issue. I thought that government intervention is to be avoided in personal choice. What right does the government have to make decisions for me?

What about the churches? Are they willing to admit that hey fail to have an impact on moral decisions making? They seem to be too interested in political power than moral power. After all "render to Ceaser what which is Ceasers and to God that which is God's".

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Lava, The reality is we can produce all the resources we need with much larger population than today. Humans are productive, not just consumers. There are enough ways around things like land limits to sustain several times the population size. Bear in mind that quadrupling population size would also quadruple labour output and number of experts.

Do we have the resources to sustain a larger population with decent standards of living and for a long period of time? That is the key point.

How do we deal with limits of housing land? We have plenty already. If the US became as densely populated as Japan is today, the population it could house would be absolutely enormous.

Have you seen how cramped those places are? Though Hong Kong is in China, it's main city is still very densely populated and feels claustrophobic to me. Pollution was a fairly big problem and is increasing again due to a flux of car ownerships.

How do we deal with limits of food production? A number of ways, including but not limited to: 1. meat prices would skyrocket, and most people going vegetarian would greatly increase the available food per person (meat is incredibly inefficient) 2. turning the vast tracts of currently unused land into farms 3. high rise farms 4. continuing increases in yield per acre due to technology progress 5. home growing, including eg growing food plants on houses, which takes up just a few inches of garden space 6. movement towards more space efficient food sources such as sprouts replacing some salads, beans and cereals replacing meats, etc 7. dual purpose gardening, where plants that are both pretty and edible become popular. 8. turning deserts into farms, that technology has existed for decades. Regards, Lava

How do we distribute the food so everyone in the world can get an equal share?

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Lava, We will never live with equal standard of living, whatever the number is, great or small.

So we shouldn't attempt to try and make it an equal life for everyone?

too quickly for what? Take up too much land for what? Destroy too much wildlife for what? Without those qualifications, the statements have little meaning. Its like saying 'it will cost you less' but not saying less than what. What is your ballpartk figure for the max population size that is not 'overpopulation', and how do you reach it? I'm surprised you havent seen this concept is a dead duck yet. Regards, Lava

Read here for a little bit more detail on what I agree with.

[Lava]

QUOTE Pooeypants, Lava

>>The reality is we can produce all the resources we need with much larger population than today. Humans are productive, not just consumers. There are enough ways around things like land limits to sustain several times the population size. Bear in mind that quadrupling population size would also quadruple labour output and number of experts.

>Do we have the resources to sustain a larger population with decent standards of living and for a long period of time? That is the key point.

I believe I addressed that with my 8 point list.


>>How do we deal with limits of housing land? We have plenty already. If the US became as densely populated as Japan is today, the population it could house would be absolutely enormous.

>Have you seen how cramped those places are? Though Hong Kong is in China, it's main city is still very densely populated and feels claustrophobic to me. Pollution was a fairly big problem and is increasing again due to a flux of car ownerships.

So humans can indeed live successfully at that density. How someone feels about it when they go from low density to high doesnt have any impact on that.


>How do we distribute the food so everyone in the world can get an equal share?

A good question, and one to which there is no good answer. But it does not change the fact that this planet can support a much greater population than at present.


>> We will never live with equal standard of living, whatever the number is, great or small.

> So we shouldn't attempt to try and make it an equal life for everyone?

It is impossible. Whether it is desirable is another question (think communism vs capitalism), which leads one to ask what is desirable. If you want to equalise living standards, which I think would be a very good thing to some extent, it is better to face these facts first, then go in with realistic achievable goals.


>>too quickly for what?
>>
>>Take up too much land for what? Destroy too much wildlife for what? Without those qualifications, the statements have little meaning. Its like saying 'it will cost you less' but not saying less than what.
>>
>>What is your ballpartk figure for the max population size that is not 'overpopulation', and how do you reach it? I'm surprised you havent seen this concept is a dead duck yet.

I dont feel you really answered these qs.


> Read here for a little bit more detail on what I agree with.

OK I did. I think its a poor article, with unsupportable claims and assumptions. Why dont we start another thread and discuss that article? And teach me how to use this damn quote system! :)

have a nice evening.


Regards, Lava

[Kyran]

Originally posted by Nuitana,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nuitana,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why is it that you seem more concerned with the choices of the unborn, at the expense of those who have been born? Wanting or not wanting the unborn to have a choice is irrelevant - the unborn have no choice.[/b]

Why? I can name several reasons. First off, the life of the born isn't at stake here. Secondly, choice is limited to self. You can't date me. That's not your choice. Understand? You can choose to date, but you can't involve others in your choice without their consent.

Originally posted by Nuitana,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nuitana,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't see adoption as a positive or responsible thing in most cases;[/b]

So killing the developing human being is the responsible thing to do? Putting the baby/fetus in the hands of someone else is negative, but going to the flush-a-baby clinic is good?

<!--QuoteBegin-Nuitana,@
Neither is it the government's or society's responsibility to dictate to a woman whether she will bear a child or have access to medical procedures such as abortion.[/quote]

The United States Constitution establishes the Rule of Law for our government; Criminal, Civil, and Admiralty. It is the govt's responsibility to dictate to you that you shall not harm other citizens, even if they are developing inside of your body.

<!--QuoteBegin-Nuitana,
Terminate the child is wrong usage in your options list, as an unborn is not a child other than in potential and imagination.[/quote]

An unborn is a child. Any denial of this fact is useless. A human life begins from the moment sperm fertilizes an egg. Regardless of the number of synonyms used to describe it in it's growth stages, it is alive and it is human. Your assertion is 100% refuted.

And that's all I'm going to say to you right now. Come back when you can argue.

[Samildanach]

Quote The United States Constitution establishes the Rule of Law for our government; Criminal, Civil, and Admiralty. It is the govt's responsibility to dictate to you that you shall not harm other citizens, even if they are developing inside of your body.

Citizenship relies on you having a birth certificate. If you have no birth certificate you are technically not a citizen. Also I don't recall the law being based on what you say Kyran. This issue has been debated by people wiser and smarter than you are and a compromise has been reached between your viewpoint and the other opposing viewpoint. That compromise will continue and nothing will change that.

Quote
An unborn is a child. Any denial of this fact is useless. A human life begins from the moment sperm fertilizes an egg. Regardless of the number of synonyms used to describe it in it's growth stages, it is alive and it is human. Your assertion is 100% refuted.

And here we have the crux of the problem. What you have basically asserted is that because you believe that the above is the case then any alternative view is wrong, therefore it is pointless debating with you. You have not refuted anything. You have merely stated your opinion and said its fact. Thats not debate its merely arrogance and a prime example of the types of attitudes you can expect from your more rabid reactionary types.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Lava, I believe I addressed that with my 8 point list.

Who will provide the funding to turn desert into arable land? Will come out of thin air or the kindness of our hearts?

So humans can indeed live successfully at that density. How someone feels about it when they go from low density to high doesnt have any impact on that.

It has impact on the human society and the wildlife surrounding it. The megacities aren't exactly the most environmentally friendly, are they?

A good question, and one to which there is no good answer. But it does not change the fact that this planet can support a much greater population than at present.

Theoretically, yes, but realistically, no. That is the point, no good saying there is enough food for a larger population when there are still large numbers of people dying of thirst and starvation.

It is impossible. Whether it is desirable is another question (think communism vs capitalism), which leads one to ask what is desirable. If you want to equalise living standards, which I think would be a very good thing to some extent, it is better to face these facts first, then go in with realistic achievable goals.

So you're saying we should give up from the beginning and just have the resources distributed as they are now?

I dont feel you really answered these qs.

That's because I don't have definitive figures.

OK I did. I think its a poor article, with unsupportable claims and assumptions. Why dont we start another thread and discuss that article? And teach me how to use this damn quote system! :) have a nice evening. Regards, Lava

If you feel that way then fine.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Lava, I believe I addressed that with my 8 point list.

Who will provide the funding to turn desert into arable land? Will come out of thin air or the kindness of our hearts?

So humans can indeed live successfully at that density. How someone feels about it when they go from low density to high doesnt have any impact on that.

It has impact on the human society and the wildlife surrounding it. The megacities aren't exactly the most environmentally friendly, are they?

A good question, and one to which there is no good answer. But it does not change the fact that this planet can support a much greater population than at present.

Theoretically, yes, but realistically, no. That is the point, no good saying there is enough food for a larger population when there are still large numbers of people dying of thirst and starvation....[/b][/quote] This exchange got me thinking and remembering: Anybody heard of Arcology?

An Arcology is based on Paolo Soleri's concept of the development of compact 3-D alternatives to existing urban sprawls, combining more efficient use of land and resources. In the future, mankind will be pressed closer and closer together in a vast urban sprawl. As society is deals with a rise in population and population density, while having to deliver a much more efficient use of resources, use of the arcology will become commonplace.

http://www.arcology.com/
See the new thread: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index...=ST&f=9&t=2603

[prettyredhead]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, What about Abstinance until Marriage? Why do you leave that time tested and proven method for dealing with unwanted pregnancy?

Because it is no longer honored. Would you buy a car without driving it? What if you like doggie style and wifey wont do anything but missionary. Eventually you will cheat on her, and blame her for not being good in bed.
How can anyone marry without having sex first. Sex is WAY< WAY more important in a marrage than you give it credit for. Wake up.!! This isnt your grandmas world anymore.
Bad sex + lack of interest in it = divorce. Ususally.
I wish people would be like they were in the 1940-50's. Trust me, it would be a better world. But this is the one we have to live in.
NO ONE EVER TOUCHES THE SOLUTION AS TO WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE ALREADY HERE, ALIVE, AND WITHOUT PARENTS.
yOU NEVER TOUCH ON THAT LITTLE TIDBIT. You dont have an answer for that, just a Nazi mentality to dictate who has to give birth or not.
WOmen will abort, legal or not. They will stick knitting needles, take an overdose, bang their stomachs with a hammer, what ever it takes.
DONT UNDERESTIMATE A WOMENS DESIRE TO ABORT AN UNWANTED FETUS> What if it is her married bosses? Her priests? What if the father was a V.I.P whose whole career would be ruined? You say, to save a fetus, ruin up to 40 other lives by its being born.
Lets just impose a one child limit on families. See how far that goes.
KILL THIS TOPIC IT IS NO ONE WINS>

[Lava]

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Lava, I believe I addressed that with my 8 point list.

Who will provide the funding to turn desert into arable land? Will come out of thin air or the kindness of our hearts? [/b][/quote]
Firstly the finding needed is not great. The centrepiece of the technique is simply dumping large quantities of unsorted household rubbish onto the sand. Then sand and seeds are added on top.

Secondly those who want to use it for farmland or development land - which will both become increasingly valuable - will pay. Thirdly government grants are likely to be forthcoming given the need for more farmland.

So humans can indeed live successfully at that density. How someone feels about it when they go from low density to high doesnt have any impact on that. It has impact on the human society and the wildlife surrounding it. The megacities aren't exactly the most environmentally friendly, are they?

This does not have enough impact to curtail population levels. Survival comes first, by a long way.

A good question, and one to which there is no good answer. But it does not change the fact that this planet can support a much greater population than at present. Theoretically, yes, but realistically, no. That is the point, no good saying there is enough food for a larger population when there are still large numbers of people dying of thirst and starvation.

I think I addressed that.

It is impossible. Whether it is desirable is another question (think communism vs capitalism), which leads one to ask what is desirable. If you want to equalise living standards, which I think would be a very good thing to some extent, it is better to face these facts first, then go in with realistic achievable goals. So you're saying we should give up from the beginning and just have the resources distributed as they are now?

I did not say that. What I said is: "If you want to equalise living standards, which I think would be a very good thing to some extent, it is better to face these facts first, then go in with realistic achievable goals."

I dont feel you really answered these qs. That's because I don't have definitive figures.

I was asking for concepts: too much for what criterion, what breakpoint? But I'm not optimistic about getting an answer now.


Regards, NT

[Lava]

Originally posted by prettyredhead, DONT UNDERESTIMATE A WOMENS DESIRE TO ABORT AN UNWANTED FETUS

Exactly. Nail on head.

The power holders of the day can say what they like and pass what laws they like, but when it comes to decisions of such enormity as abortion and a child's life, people are going to do what they decide regardless of what the law says.

That leaves only 2 real choices: legal safe abortion or illegal dangerous abortion. That is the real choice.

Paradoxically the morality, although most important, doesnt come into the question of what the law should be.


Regards, Lava