Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]


BS: Roe v. Wade

Bonzo3legs 06 Aug 22 - 10:40 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 22 - 09:33 AM
Bonzo3legs 06 Aug 22 - 07:11 AM
Helen 06 Aug 22 - 07:03 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 22 - 06:37 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 22 - 06:24 AM
Helen 06 Aug 22 - 06:24 AM
Dave the Gnome 06 Aug 22 - 05:08 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Aug 22 - 04:57 AM
Helen 06 Aug 22 - 04:49 AM
Dave the Gnome 06 Aug 22 - 04:01 AM
Helen 06 Aug 22 - 03:52 AM
Helen 06 Aug 22 - 03:25 AM
Dave the Gnome 06 Aug 22 - 02:50 AM
Ebbie 05 Aug 22 - 11:47 PM
Donuel 05 Aug 22 - 11:37 PM
Donuel 05 Aug 22 - 08:18 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 22 - 08:10 PM
Helen 05 Aug 22 - 08:05 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 22 - 07:33 PM
Donuel 05 Aug 22 - 07:17 PM
Helen 05 Aug 22 - 06:32 PM
Helen 05 Aug 22 - 06:06 PM
Dave the Gnome 05 Aug 22 - 05:40 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 22 - 04:49 PM
Donuel 05 Aug 22 - 04:38 PM
Helen 05 Aug 22 - 03:48 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 22 - 06:53 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 22 - 05:06 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 22 - 04:54 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 22 - 04:53 AM
Helen 05 Aug 22 - 04:52 AM
Bonzo3legs 05 Aug 22 - 04:21 AM
Steve Shaw 05 Aug 22 - 03:54 AM
Helen 04 Aug 22 - 09:24 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Aug 22 - 08:41 PM
Helen 04 Aug 22 - 07:25 PM
Steve Shaw 04 Aug 22 - 06:01 PM
Donuel 04 Aug 22 - 04:16 PM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Aug 22 - 02:31 PM
Donuel 04 Aug 22 - 12:58 PM
Donuel 04 Aug 22 - 12:27 PM
Donuel 04 Aug 22 - 12:20 PM
Ebbie 04 Aug 22 - 12:14 PM
MaJoC the Filk 04 Aug 22 - 10:40 AM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Aug 22 - 09:00 AM
Donuel 04 Aug 22 - 08:41 AM
McGrath of Harlow 04 Aug 22 - 07:39 AM
Steve Shaw 04 Aug 22 - 07:26 AM
MaJoC the Filk 04 Aug 22 - 07:01 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 10:40 AM

Yes and potential abortion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 09:33 AM

The potential result of a ripped condom would be pregnancy. Duh.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 07:11 AM

I wonder how many abortions have happened as a result of a torn johnny??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 07:03 AM

The slogans, "My body, my choice" and "A woman's right to choose" are not just about choosing whether to have an abortion. The choices are life choices, including when or whether to have children and how many.

If you watch the UK TV show called Long Lost Family you will see real-life women who had to make possibly the most difficult choice in their lives on whether to have the baby or give him/her up for adoption and then they had to live with that choice for the rest of their lives.

Usually there were extremely pressing circumstances which gave them very little real choice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 06:37 AM

I see that we're still conflating contraception (good) and abortion (bad) then... One fine day we'll get away from seeing abortion as a lifestyle choice and see it instead for what it is, a failure of education...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 06:24 AM

Hmm. Pre-coffee question marks in that last post! They mean nowt, Dave. And aye, let's focus, eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 06:24 AM

I'm looking at the topic in the sense of why women would choose to have an abortion, or use contraception.

I'm looking at the impact on women's lives and the choices we can make when we are not faced with the prospect of having lots and lots of children, year after year after year.

Theoretically, a woman could have a baby every year, or even more. That's a lot of babies between the start and end of childbearing years.

What are the social, emotional and economic impacts on the lives of women when they have choices regarding the number of children they bear in their lives? Nowadays, women and their partners can decide when to have children, how many children to have, and whether/how to fulfill the rest of their life ambitions rather than having to be wholly and solely a mother in their lifetime, whether that suits them or not. And yes, some women do want their prime life ambition to be raising children.

The choice for a woman to have a career in pre-contraception times would usually mean not marrying, not having children. The classic image of the spinster.

Looking at birth rates in pre- and post-birth control times is a way to look at the consequences on women's lives. The bigger picture.

Think about this. If a woman has her first child when she is about 20, then a child every year, and her last child when she is about 40, she has looked after a baby every year for 20 years, and by then the older children may have produced grandchildren and she may be babysitting them too while looking after a baby, some toddlers, some school age kids and some teenagers. If that isn't fulfilling her life goals, then she can't break free of it and do whatever else she wants to do.

Abortion isn't just about making the decision to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, it is also about how having a child or not having a child will affect the mother's whole life.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 05:08 AM

I still stand by the need for women to be in control of their own bodies and their life choices

Absolutely, Helen. So do I. Which is why I am wondering why you are watering down the argument so much by changing the topic to birthrates :-(


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 04:57 AM

That's right, Dave. ?? Please continue to be the small, quiet voice that sets aside all the sidestepping bullshit of recent days! I'd love to talk about contraception, fertility rate and population, but not in a Roe v. Wade thread. To swerve the thread in that direction, whilst throwing in a healthy smattering of misandry, is just crackpotism.


Thank you Ebbie. I did wonder whether you were being tongue-in-cheek and I called it wrong. I have always respected your measured postings.

If there's one person here who doesn't need you to fight my corner with the moderators, Donuel, it's me. Please stop being so patronisingly ridiculous. My word, there are times when your over-inflated view of your own intellect is truly staggering. Have a nice day.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 04:49 AM

I haven't looked this up but are there statistics on the number of abortions in the US? I'm wondering whether personal privacy would prevent the stats being made public. I can't imagine someone wanting to shout it from the rooftops. That's kind of why I am referring to the availability of both contraception and abortion, in relation to birth rates.

I remember a work colleague back in the mid-'80's, who was in a healthy, long-term relationship, telling me that her preferred choice for ensuring that she wouldn't have babies would be abortion. I diplomatically and quietly stated my thoughts on the matter and I have to admit, I wasn't personally convinced that it seemed a good first choice when contraception was available, but I didn't push my point of view which centres around prevention is better than cure. I also never revealed the conversation to anyone else. It was a private conversation.

It doesn't change my point of view on the need for the availability of abortion, especially for medical emergencies or cases such as rape or child sexual abuse, etc. I still stand by the need for women to be in control of their own bodies and their life choices.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 04:01 AM

A real fact is that the birth rate in the US was 1.7 per woman in the US in 2019 and that the abortion rate would have no appreciable effect on that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 03:52 AM

For example, this page shows:

How China’s population has changed since 1950 with reference to the start and end of the one child policy.

This page discusses: 1961: Introduction of the oral contraceptive pill in Australia

Yes, you're right. Immigration muddies the statistical waters when looking at population growth. We have - did haved before COVID, that is - a fairly high immigration rate so this page shows a chart of birth rate in Australia since 1935:

birth rate

After the post-WWII baby boom there is a significant drop to below the 1935 rate from around the time that contraception became available.

Note: in my post-grad management degree I studied a statistics module for one semester. I like stats but it's not my main area of interest, though I confess to being a spreadsheet nerd.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 03:25 AM

Thanks Dave,

I'm basing my comments on the assumption that the present data for those countries in the developed world where contraception and abortion are relatively commonly used would influence the current birth rate. There would be less births in those countries than in countries where contraception and/or abortion are forbidden or not accepted socially, i.e. where births would occur naturally without intervention prior to or after conception.

I tried to find a graph to check whether China's one child policy had an obvious effect on the population increase rate but maybe I didn't look in the right places. I'll keep looking.

I'm not fixed on finding the answers I want. I just want to find real facts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 22 - 02:50 AM

Thanks Helen. The data that I needed was not there though because I used the wrong phrase so sorry for that. I said that the population was decreasing in the developed world, which is untrue because it doesn't allow for migration. I should have said that the birth rate was decreasing in the developed world, which is true. It has no relevance on the topic in question as far as I can see. If the birth rate is less than 2 per woman, which seems to be the case in the US (1.7 in 2019), then abortion will have no effect. I have always been pro choice and against the type of control that the fundamentalists in the US are now excercising. Limiting abortion as they are doing now is wrong, but it is also wrong to claim that it will have a major impact on world birth rates. It does the case against them no favours if your arguments are false.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 11:47 PM

Man, this thread has gone down the toilet.

Steve Shaw, I must apologize to you. My presenting the case for mandatory vasectomies was proposed tongue in cheek - there is no way I would support any such action, no more than I would back anyone proposing forced closure of a female body's vagina, say. Either would be extreme to the max.

Incidentally, I don't consider you to be narcissistic or lacking empathy. I suspect that you are being attacked online in a way that they would never do in person. I may not always understand you or even always agree with your conclusions but I think that in person I would always respect the processes you apply.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 11:37 PM

If you are not for freedom of speech for people you dislike, you are not for freedom at all. You wouldn't know this but in my communication with mods I consistantly insist upon your freedom of speech and denigrate the very concept of cancel culture. Nor is it illegal to lie. It won't change a believer's mind but I sometimes correct the record.

If ever there was time to hate men who want to control women's health, today is it. US conservatives, and that includes Supreme Court Justices, are primed to remove the right to use contraceptives next.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 08:18 PM

You could be president
of your own nationalist fascist party.
Spot on mate.
My real last name used to be Shithouse but we changed it to La-trine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 08:10 PM

Nothing you ever say is founded on anything other than your own parish-pump Aussie prejudices, Helen. Try looking outward once in a while. And do try to drop the man-hatred occasionally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 08:05 PM

Well, there you go again, buddy. Making unfounded assumptions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 07:33 PM

There is no connection, Dave, and the two shithouses here who are trying to divert the conversation are showing a complete lack of understanding. One is a serial man-hater and the other is a serial mushroom-addled eejit. Don't waste your time!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 07:17 PM

The UN says that India is foremost in population growth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 06:32 PM

And then, it depends on how many children are born to that increased population. If in every case two people have two children then the population would rise in a reasonably stable way, but when there are more children, then they grow up and produce more children.

For example, if 2 people have 2 children who then have 2 children themselves, the total is 8 (i.e. the couple, their 2 children and 4 grandchildren). If the couple has 9 children then the total is 92 (i.e. the couple, their 9 children and their 81 grandchildren).

Take the second example forward a few generations and there will be a population explosion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 06:06 PM

Well Dave,

Here is a population graph:

Estimates of population evolutio n in different continents between 1950 and 2050, according to the United Nations. The vertical axis is logarithmic and is in millions of people.

Any sort of limitation on the number of pregnancies brought to successful term would bring down the population. Limitations can include contraception or abortions or, for example, the one child policy implemented in China between 1980 and 2016, or sexual abstinence, but given the "sexual revolution" of the last century I personally think that that is unlikely in developed countries at least.

As one article I read stated, with the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision in the US it is possible that another item on the political agenda might be constraints on the use of contraceptives.

Assuming that a similar number of people continue to have sex at the same or similar rate as at present, the population would be likely to grow in the absence of contraception and/or abortion.

There would also be an increase in adoptions or children placed into orphanages. There would be an impact on the social environment, and on government services required.

None of this takes into account the emotional, economic and social toll on the parent/s of these children if the pregnancy was unwanted.

Personally, I would favour the contraception method where possible, but abortion should be available where needed. That's my opinion. I have strong views on the sanctity of life, but I also have strong views on a woman's right to choose in decisions about her own body and her own life.

Personally, I think an effective method to make the Supreme Court judges rethink their decision is to abandon all those unplanned babies on their doorsteps and see how long it takes before they change their minds.

(I'm only half serious about that. Think of the poor babies!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 05:40 PM

The population in Europe and the US is on the decline. That seems to have been agreed. So where is the population increasing? I would assume that Africa and Asia are the major contributors but please correct me if I am wrong. In either case, I cannot see a connection between abortions in the USA and the population of the world. Would anyone care to enlighten me?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:49 PM

The posts from both of you are so beneath contempt that a response would be inappropriate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:38 PM

The ugly truth about abortion prior to it being legal over 50 years ago is the amateur abortion. Even in Roman times there were concoctions that could cause abortions. Sometimes they worked. In my case they didn't. I've mentioned it before to the cessation of discussion except for Jack Campin. Some of us have unusual beginings, some of us were never told. At any rate my prenatal experience reinforces the need for safe effective abortions.


Helen, As much as you would like it to be true you can't get empathy from a narcicist or social psychopath. The saying is you can't get blood from a stone. Unnoticed by the narcicist is that they take personally things totally unrelated them because everything is always about them in their mind. People with empathy can be offended or forgive or ignore. Ignoring is fine since there is no cure for who people are. Its only important to warn others to the 20% who are the social psychopaths of the possible dangers. They aren't all dangerous
outside their sphere of influence. But they are an annoyance at times. In my case I am a bit of a Loki when dealing with those types.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 03:48 PM

You can see that I wrote the word "contraception" with quotation marks so I was playing with the word to get my point across, but also the term is taken to mean preventing pregnancy however the term for getting/becoming pregnant is "conception" or "conceiving" from the Latin root "con" i.e. "with" and "capio" i.e. I capture.

According to Etymology Online the word "conception" in relation to pregnancy was not used until the 14th Century.

Other related words are "concept", "inception", "accept", "precept", etc.

"Contra", on the other hand means "against" so it has been used to imply actions taken to prevent pregnancy however technically the term perhaps should be "contraconception" which is unnecessarily unwieldy but would mean (action) against conceiving or becoming pregnant.

Technically, an abortion is a procedure to prevent birth at full term.

My use of the term "contraception" in relation to abortion was technically not correct which is why I used quotation marks and that shows that I was aware of that.

Now, Steve, if you would like to stop doing your usual pedantic superiority act about terminology and get back to the topic at hand, that would be nice.

I notice that when vasectomy was mentioned, it suddenly became personal to you.

Abortion, unwanted pregnancy, and all of the related emotional and social and economic issues is personal to the women experiencing it and the people around them. It's not an impersonal topic for standing on a soapbox and declaiming and theorising. It requires empathy, understanding and social and emotional support for the people experiencing it.

You can declaim your theories as much as you like but what I notice is missing from your posts is empathy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 06:53 AM

Typos and errors creeping in - I really must try to not do this on my phone without my reading specs...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 05:06 AM

No irony, then in the fact that you accuse Bonzo of misogyny (no comment from me on that as I've addressed his post with a serious response already) then lump all men together in misandry. I don't know any men "who think it's all a game," actually. And contraception means action to prevent conception. If you are having an abortion, you've already conceived. The two are not the same thing. I'm not going to argue for the moment "conception" actually takes place, or whether IUDs and morning-after pills are actually devices to procure very early abortions, though I note that some anti-abortionists keep silent about that potential inconsistency.

For the second time of asking, let's try to avoid this anti-men sentiment. We don't all treat "it" as a game and we don't all deserve to have enforced vasectomies (actually, none of us do).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:54 AM

That was to Bonzo.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:53 AM

Well you clearly moved in strange circles. Most of those abortions would have been illegal. But they still happened, and that is part of what were discussing here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:52 AM

Abortion is "contraception" after the fact. If contraception was more readily available to all women regardless of their socio-economic status then the rate of abortions would drop. I am certain that abortion would not be the first contraceptive choice of the majority of women who have them. If they could have avoided getting pregnant in the first place then there would be less abortions.

I repeat the quote from that article:

“An unplanned pregnancy can ruin young women economically,” explains Anderson. “We want to develop products that are more accessible to all women. Bringing the number of unplanned pregnancies down is an important step we can take to rebalance the planet.”

And Bonzo, just what I expect from you - a sexist, misogynist comment with no empathy or understanding of the issue.

It takes two to tango, and men should bear the burden of unwanted pregnancies as well, rather than fulfilling the old saying, "eats, roots, shoots and leaves" and thinking it is all just a game.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 04:21 AM

I remember many instances of abortions in the 60s following a leg-over in the back of a car!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 22 - 03:54 AM

Well if you insist on diverting the topic towards discussing population issues, take a look at this excellent piece on the BBC News website : Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born The increased access to contraception allowing women to control how many children they have, along with the increasing role of women in the workplace, the cost of childcare, etc., have caused the global fertility rate (nothing to do with sperm getting less healthy, etc.) to crash in the last 50 years. Some countries, China and Spain for example, can expect their populations to halve by 2100. In some regards this is not necessarily a good thing. It's a good read. And abortion doesn't get a mention. I asked what discussing population has to do with restricting abortion in America, the supposed theme of this thread. All I have in response so far is sidestepping.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 09:24 PM

I'd be interested to read the scientific studies and articles on which you base your statements.

You might like to read this article for a start. There are lots more relevant articles available.

Why We Need a Contraception Revolution

Section headings in the article:

* We have already exceeded the Earth’s predicted carrying capacity—and climate change will make things worse.

* To reduce unplanned pregnancies, educate and empower young women and provide them with more contraception choices.

“An unplanned pregnancy can ruin young women economically,” explains Anderson. “We want to develop products that are more accessible to all women. Bringing the number of unplanned pregnancies down is an important step we can take to rebalance the planet.”

* New contraception approaches could help reduce healthcare costs, save human lives, and preserve Earth’s natural resources for future generations.

* New contraception concepts are already emerging.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 08:41 PM

The driver of population increase, or slowdown, is birth rate. There are many factors that affect birth rate which have been well-documented. Abortions scarcely impact on that at all. If you make abortion illegal, there will be more backstreet abortions. Whether or not abortions are permitted doesn't impact on the overall abortion numbers very much at all. This is a matter of sheer statistics. It's rather difficult to see why this has to be explained to intelligent people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 07:25 PM

Hmm! A connection between population increase and pregnancies?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 06:01 PM

Perhaps someone here would like to apprise as to what the consideration of world population has to do with the issue of restricting abortions for American women, interesting though it might be.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 04:16 PM

The 5 billion increase in population in my life did not come from Italy, US or Japan.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 22 - 02:31 PM

Average number of children in families in the USA is below 2.0. Significantly lower in Europe (1.3 in Germany, for example) and Japan. Not the result of pressures of starvation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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…


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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…


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 11 August 11:47 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.