BS: Roe v. Wade

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 12:58 PM

You don't have to share my reality to study: Malthusian theory



In the late eighteenth century, in 1798, England's renowned economist Thomas Malthus, in his book ‘Essay
on the Principal of Population’
1
, propounded a stirring theory about population, according to his name, it is
called the Malthusian Population Theory. [1] Malthus discussed the problem of population increase in the food
supply and the scarcity of production rule. According to Malthus, population increases in geometric rates and
food production increases at arithmetical rate. In the twentieth century, we will see how logical the population
theory of Malthus is in today's world and how unreasonable. Although the population theory of Malthus is
somewhat true for the underdeveloped countries. Due to the development and use of science and technology
in the present world, the population theory of Malthas has been criticized by various modern economists.

Everyone wants a career so denying the obvious works for some.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 12:27 PM

United Nations — The world's population is expected to reach eight billion on November 15, the United Nations forecast Monday in a report that said India will surpass China as the most populous country on Earth in 2023. That overall population milestone "is a reminder of our shared responsibility to care for our planet and a moment to reflect on where we still fall short of our commitments to one another," Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, without citing specifics.

"This is an occasion to celebrate our diversity, recognize our common humanity, and marvel at advancements in health that have extended lifespans and dramatically reduced maternal and child mortality rates," he added.

I do not share his celebration. imo In Malthusian terms we (the global we) look screwed.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 12:20 PM

The UN 'celebrated' the fact last week. Or was it this week? You got me Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 12:14 PM

Donuel, unless you have found uncounted pockets of people, we have not yet officially arrived at 8 billion in population.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 10:40 AM

> We don't have exponential growth.

We would, if it wasn't for said limits --- they're called "Malthusian checks" in the appropriate trades. Sadly, mankind seems to be cashing theirs in on behalf of the entire ecosphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 09:00 AM

We don't have exponential growth.

Population growth had pretty well ceased in all developed countries, including China. It's estimated that world maximum population will peak around the end of the century, at about 11 billion, with gradual reduction from then on.

Of course things could happen that bring that figure way down…

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 08:41 AM

If the issue of abortion stands alone it will have overwhelming support but when tied to a cult personality the margin narrows, by how much is indeed uncertain.

Beyond human concerns, in fighting and personal interests there is the fact that the Earth has defenses against our 8 billion+ over population. They are called limits. I remember as a kid when we were at 3 billion strong. I won't pretend we are at a population high water mark but I admit it feels that way. Yep population is exponential but what feeds us is incremental. Limits are out there somewhere and they won't be pretty. In fact they aren't pretty now are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 07:39 AM

Agreed. But undoubtedly any attempt to delegitimise it would undoubtedly attract a host of very unsavoury anti-semites and islamophobes, and anyone arguing for it would be lumped in with them.

Which is rather similar to what happens in other contexts…

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 07:26 AM

True, Kevin, but that doesn't legitimise a procedure that mutilates young boys needlessly. It is a downright uncivilised thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 07:01 AM

> The Kansas vote gives us a smidgen of hope. I haven't looked into
> whether such a ballot will be replicated in other states.

It'll serve as a warning to other states to never let voters near a ballot box .... or to keep sending them there till they get the outcome they first thought of, then nail it into place. "Will of the People" an' all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 06:33 AM

"a civilised society does not condone the enforced mutilation of its citizens, whether that's female genital mutilation, circumcision or vasectomy"

On that basis there aren't any civilised countries, Steve. There is no country that bans infant male circumcision.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 04:38 AM

Are you a peeping Tom?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 09:19 PM

Whats the penalty for a false police report to Interpol? Its late and you drank too much again. Go to sleep.

It seems so unlikely a turn of events but the world is saved from a second term of Trump because of the reversal of Roe v Wade.
Even Arizona goes from a 5 point win for Trump but with the issue of abortion it goes to a 60% win for Democrats.
Abortion aborts Trump. Who knew.
Well...I hoped.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 09:04 PM

"you don't know a thing about psyilocybin"

Well my degree is in botany and plant technology from Imperial College, so I do know things, though I've never been stupid enough to indulge. The real world is wonderful enough for me. You should try it some time. Actually, it could just be that I know a bit more about psilocybin than you do. Keeping a supply of it in your bedroom does not make you an expert, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 08:53 PM

Baby drop off boxes

https://www.firehouse.com/stations/news/21263216/baby-was-surrendered-in-a-safe-haven-baby-box-at-carmel-in-fire-station-345

You could and do say anything Steve but you don't know a thing about psyilocybin so when you do say something stupid I know which end I am hearing. Honestly, when I speak of assholes I am not always talking about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 08:43 PM

Anti abortionists are pushing the a href="https://www.firehouse.com/stations/news/21263216/baby-was-surrendered-in-a-safe-haven-baby-box-at-carmel-in-fire-station-345">fire staion baby box

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 08:31 PM

Well we could say that sacred facts are screwed up by magic mushrooms too. There's no need for you to tell us more.

The Kansas vote gives us a smidgen of hope. I haven't looked into whether such a ballot will be replicated in other states. It does seem from opinion polls that the majority of Americans don't support the Supreme Court decision, at least in part. However, I'll have to have a think about that: at the time of the abolition of hanging in the UK, 84% of the populace (according to the polls of the time: is that a caveat?) wanted to retain hanging. Dunno whether they were asked whether we should bring back the birch... I'm always wary of using poll results to give me succour apropos of my own views. I think we call it confirmation bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 08:18 PM

My ego is outside the door but still alive so I enjoy saying "I told you so". NASA now begins public UFP investigation. They need to search their archives first. I'm afraid they may find their data is missing like the pentagon and Secret Service. This process was stalled by the fact trump was in office. He could have royally screwed up disclosure in ways that were unpredictable.

I am particularly delighted that the reversal of the american academy of sciences regarding ufo's virtually exonerates my friend Dr. J Allen Hynek who was snubbed and 'excommunicated' by them 3 decades ago.
Sacred facts are crippled and slowed by assholes.

The late John of Kansas often mentioned that Kansas folks are not the same crazed creeps that live in Oklahoma and Texas. I am not surprised by the win to protect abortion but the margin is unheard of in this time of close elections and amendments.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 08:02 PM

Well yes. But mandatory vasectomies? Really??

First of all, a civilised society does not condone the enforced mutilation of its citizens, whether that's female genital mutilation, circumcision or vasectomy. Secondly (and far less relevantly), reversal of vasectomy is far from straightforward. It is often, usually, difficult or impossible.

I had a vasectomy a year after our second child was born. I was told then to not expect it to be reversible. Times may have changed in that regard for all I know, but I still can't understand why this notion is even on the agenda. There's just a whiff, in my opinion, of latent man-hatred in the suggestion. The statement that men can't understand this because we have no frame of reference worries me greatly. Let me just tell you that we men are not all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 07:54 PM

An interesting speculative article about the possible political implications of the ballot in Kansas.

Kansas put abortion rights on the ballot. The surprising outcome is reverberating across the United States

"And while abortion opponents in Kansas have described it as a "temporary setback", others see it as a resounding rebuke of the Supreme Court.

"With midterm elections looming in November, how far that backlash extends could have major consequences for the rest of the country."

As I said earlier in this thread,16 Jul 22 - 08:44 PM "It's a possibility that the women voters in the US might get as motivated as the Aussie women in our recent federal election."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 07:40 PM

I second that, Ebbie.

"Thank you for the prior quality post."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 06:44 PM

Times are fluid in conservative states where they are going so far as promoting laws to protect rapists and even each member of the rapist's family. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/idaho-abortion-bill-rapist-families
Sueing in court can have variable amounts and outcomes be it in any state. There is no fixed amount except in cases when a cap is put on awards. So no particular amount is set in stone. But whenever 10K is awarded to an 'abortion bounty hunter' or a rapist consider yourself correct.
Who pays the $10,000? If they win, plaintiffs can recover at least $10,000 for each abortion prohibited under the law. The money damages could well run higher if a lawsuit has many defendants in the case.

“The defendant — whether a provider, funder, clergyperson, friend or family member — pays the damages which are set at a minimum of $10,000. If there are several defendants, they each pay $10,000 in damages,” Elizabeth Sepper, a professor specializing in health law and religious liberty at the University of Texas at Austin’s School of Law.
By the way Ebbie thank you for the prior quality post.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 04:26 PM

You're right, Ebbie. As the Guardian says, comment is free but facts are sacred.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 04:03 PM

Where do you get the $20,000 figure, Donuel? The last I knew, it is $10,000, which is bad enough, but we need to make sure we state facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 07:53 AM

There is extreme confusion in Texas as to how close to death by sepsis a woman must be to have medical treatment regarding a dead or dying fetus. Some go by the stench of death in discharge and others by a 104 fever.
Texas is the state that has a $20,000 bounty for turning in anyone who aids a woman to get an abortion, even if its an Uber ride.

It is morning glory for Kansas

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 05:04 AM

MaJoC the Filk - PM
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 03:29 AM
Georgia residents can now claim embryos as dependents on their tax returns, after the state banned most abortions. Taxpayers filing from 20 July or after, when Georgia banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, can now receive up to $3000 in tax credits. Tax filers may be asked to provide documents proving that the embryo has a "detectable human heartbeat".
**********************************
One problem is that lower income tax payers typically take the automatic deductions, it doesn't benefit them to itemize.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Pete from seven stars link - PM
Date: 20 Jul 22 - 04:40 PM

Rape is a hard one, but why should a baby pay for the transgression of the man. Pro abortion usually appeal to the hard cases, but usually they are pushing for abortion on demand . Some say a man shouldn’t have an opinion on a woman’s issue , but of course there’s other lives involved , and it’s hardly only men who speak out for the defenceless in the womb.
*******************************

#1: It is NOT the baby who pays (there IS no baby until later in its development- even God, when he created Adam didn't call the job finished until he BREATHED life into him)- it is the female body and the emotional, psychological and physical trauma that pays.

#2: I can't fathom any system that demands that a body should carry a fetus that was created by rape, whether forcible or statuatory, to term. FORCIBLE rape is an absolute horror. Statuatory rape indicates that either the female was too young to give valid consent or that by reason of a mental or emotional disorder the female was not capable of giving valid consent.

#3: Men have no frame of reference in understanding this issue. The men of the Supreme Court should have recused themselves in the matter; it should have been debated and decided upon solely by the three women Justices. (Of course, if that stipulation were made, the question would not have been accepted for review.)

#4: I share someone else's proposal: Young men should be given a mandatory vasectomy. When they have demonstrated the maturity and the ability to take on responsibility, the vasectomy can be reversed. That suggestion is no more outrageous than what is being demanded of the female body.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 03:37 AM

> Excellent news from Kansas.

I saw that too, on the previous red-button entry. Do you want to transcribe it, or shall I?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 03:30 AM

Excellent news from Kansas.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 03 Aug 22 - 03:29 AM

[Point of order: this is factual input, not comment.]

BBC red button: Georgia offers tax credits for embryos

Georgia residents can now claim embryos as dependents on their tax returns, after the state banned most abortions. Taxpayers filing from 20 July or after, when Georgia banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, can now receive up to $3000 in tax credits. Tax filers may be asked to provide documents proving that the embryo has a "detectable human heartbeat".

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 02 Aug 22 - 09:17 PM

US sues Idaho over abortion ban , citing 'necessary' medical treatment in certain cases being denied

"The US Justice Department has filed a lawsuit that challenges Idaho's restrictive abortion law, arguing that it conflicts with a federal law requiring doctors to provide pregnant women medically necessary treatment that could include abortion."

....

"Idaho Democratic Party Chair Lauren Necochea praised the Justice Department's lawsuit in a prepared statement, saying the state's Republican politicians would rather let a pregnancy kill a person than allow them to receive an abortion.

"'Idaho's radical abortion ban gives health care providers an impossible choice: withhold medically necessary care or face prison time,' Ms Necochea said.

"'In states where these bans have gone into effect, providers are waiting for medical conditions to worsen before assisting their pregnant patients, increasing the risk of sepsis and other life-threatening complications. This is immoral.' "

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Jul 22 - 03:41 PM

I thoroughly approve of abortion, absolutely necessary. I do NOT approve of arrogant finger waving individuals calling themselves "christians" who make up their own rules as they go along.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 31 Jul 22 - 03:32 PM

.... so apart from Doug thinking that a man can’t comment on abortion

I didn't say that. I made an observation and I leave it to others to consider the significance.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Jul 22 - 02:48 PM

Doug was commenting on it being more men on here commenting on abortion , but so far as I know, Doug is also a man , and I don’t know what gender stilly is . Methinks also that there are more posts by men than women around here anyway , so apart from Doug thinking that a man can’t comment on abortion unless he approves of it !,it amounts to little more than a wish to silence dissenters .

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jul 22 - 11:00 AM

Particularly disturbing, Doug, that Petex7 chooses to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Jul 22 - 08:12 AM

I agree with much of what Steve says ; in particular the internet distorting views on sexuality . Credit where it’s due ……. That’s about it though !

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Jul 22 - 02:11 AM

Lean on Jesus before he leans on you!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 22 - 07:02 PM

I think it comes down more to whose side you're on, Doug, especially if you don't patronise.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 Jul 22 - 06:51 PM

I find it interesting that, on a thread about a woman's right to control her body, around 60% of the posters seem to be men and they have 75% of the posts.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 22 - 05:53 PM

I tried to tell you: hardly anyone has an abortion by 24 weeks. We don't need a time limit. Please look up the stats if you don't believe me. A time limit allows anti-abortion medics to delay decisions, thus forcing women to have babies that they don't want. I'm not OK with that, even if you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Rain Dog
Date: 23 Jul 22 - 05:42 PM

I am still not sure what you mean exactly. Objecting to lowering limits is one thing, saying there should be no limits is another. Do you think abortions should be allowed at 40 weeks?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jul 22 - 03:35 PM

Sterilization involves removal of the fallopian tubes, not just tubal ligation.

A fetus is not defenseless. They often kill mothers.
I suppose a tumor is just as defenseless.
I suppose a 10 year old can get a cesarian whether it kills her or not.

Face it, ban abortion and you can eliminate or interupt the competition in the work space, in professional careers and in scientific discovery.
Eliminate the women vote and you get rid of redressing the law for women.

A terrorist act of implanting an eight pound object in a man would be considered assault or murder. I have several politicians in mind for this procedure.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 22 - 02:38 PM

Sure. We don't need limits set arbitrarily at 20, 22 or 24 weeks, etc., because almost no-one has abortions that late. Setting limits allows unsympathetic medics to deliberately cause delays and imposes a fake layer of morality over the issue. If you don't like abortion, campaigning to ban it is at least honest and consistent. Campaigning to lower time limits is an immoral tactic. Either you agree with abortion or you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Rain Dog
Date: 23 Jul 22 - 02:11 PM

"In the meantime, abortion must be a freely-available option without time limits and delays."

I am not sure what you mean by "without time limits". Can you explain that further?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 22 - 01:54 PM

It's easy enough to blame men/ blame women (both apparently suggested in recent posts). For me, the issue is one of education. In my misspent yoof we had (for example, and not the only one) the Catholic Church which actually opposed "sex education" (I'll come back to that), and such matters as family planning and contraception were completely off the radar, positively sinful. You didn't do it until you were wed, and even thinking about it was sinful. Every bit of advice, what there was of it, to teenagers went completely against human nature and human urges.

So look where we are now. "Sex education" is way, way behind the curve. The internet is where you get your twisted information and your warped attitudes. Ten-year-olds have no problem accessing pornography. You learn that sex is your right and that love don't come into it. Love is replaced by exploitation. You learn that anything goes in any position you like and there's nothing you can't see in glorious technicolor. Schools (only some schools...) make valiant efforts to teach it right, but even with the best intentions they are pissing into the wind. Almost everyone is a sexual being, and sex in its many guises is the most natural thing in the world - yet school draft in "speakers" and "experts" to talk to kids about sex. I suppose it's an advance on the priests who "taught us sex" in "retreats" and on those special lessons from the school nurse...

We can't win this battle unless every responsible adult in every school, and every responsible parent, accepts that they have a role. Any teacher who says that they "don't do sex because they do physics" should be sacked (or at least seriously retrained)! Every school worker, as part of their remit, should be showing children good, positive, respectful relationships with each other and between them and the children. Good sex can only happen within a mutually-respectful and fully-consensual relationship. That means in in the context of full knowledge and of strong self-respect, not just mutual respect. Contraception should be taught and should be freely available. We can set age limits and other rules if we like, but in my cloud-cuckoo land we wouldn't need them.

It's an aspiration, but it's a nettle that has not been grasped. It's not about men with roving willies or horny women getting into bother. It's a deep-seated challenge for society that can't be confronted by finding somebody to blame. Get it right and abortion numbers will dwindle to near-nothing. In the meantime, abortion must be a freely-available option without time limits and delays. Campaigning against abortion must not be permitted within a mile of clinics.

And whatever we do, we must keep the priest, nuns, imams and rabbis strictly out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Monique
Date: 23 Jul 22 - 12:57 PM

"Oh, but they do care. / As long as they don't have to spend a nickel out of their own pockets."
If it's only about saying "I care" or/and letting other people deal with the child once born, I don't really see the difference between that and "I don't care".

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Jul 22 - 04:55 PM

and maybe some women can't wait to drop their knickers - be realistic!!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 22 Jul 22 - 04:42 PM

Yes, when the "defenceless life" becomes a mother her rights are not considered important.

Are there any legal avenues being explored to stop men from putting women and girls into jeopardy by making them pregnant in the first place?

Sorry, that's not really a serious question, a) because the abortion problem is viewed as one created by women and girls, b) because the majority of people in the position of power to create the legislation are men and not women, and c) maybe some men think it's a God-given right to impregnate women/girls as and when they choose regardless of the consequences on the women/girls.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jul 22 - 03:37 PM

Oh, but they do care.

As long as they don't have to spend a nickel out of their own pockets.

On the other hand, they certainly don't care about the mother, because universal health care, as in Canada, is "communism" and "government interference in our lives."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Monique
Date: 22 Jul 22 - 01:32 AM

"the defenceless in the womb" whose life nobody cares about once out of the womb.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: gillymor
Date: 21 Jul 22 - 07:47 PM

Pete- " It’s called democracy I believe"

Funny, Democracy is anathema to the would-be dictator you're touting.