Politics And AGW/GW

[LadyPakal]

Notice the unbolded 'contraception and' in that sentence. He is not advocating tying a woman down and giving her a forcible abortion. Many women use abortion now as a form of contraception, so where is the problem?

[noggin]

I have said, quite clearly that I am in favour of contraception.

Killing unborn babies is not contraception.

[LadyPakal]

You have your view and that is fine. Others feel differently and, as you expect your views to be respected, you have to respect their views as well. Otherwise you are trying to force your will onto others & where is that different to what happened 65/70 years ago?

[noggin]

Many women use abortion now as a form of contraception, so where is the problem?

Do they? That is news to me. In all of my life, which is 53 years, I have only ever come across ONE woman who doesn't think that abortion is wrong and even she said it would be wrong to have more than one.

The trouble is that all you see and read in the media is the gobby, loudmouthed types of women who bang on about "a woman's right to choose". There is a silent, huge, huge majority of women for whom the idea of aborting unborn babies is totally abhorrent. A woman is "designed" to give birth and equipped to nourish and give comfort to her babies and children.....it is against Nature for her to kill them, whatever their age, whether born or still being carried within her.

Perhaps Porritt could take a leaf out of his own book and top himself, but that wouldn't do......no doubt he would feel it necessary to stay around to dictate which babies should be allowed to live and which ones should be condemned to death.

I feel very strongly about this subject.

[LadyPakal]

'I feel very strongly about this subject.'

We'd never have guessed.

As for '"designed" to give birth and equipped to nourish and give comfort to her babies and children' try telling that to my body, which is only interested in naturally aborting them.

But you know what - that is not the subject of this thread. Population growth is a problem - many countries already have more mouths than they can feed. Growth of bio-fuels (taking away arable land from food growth, as well as the rainforest destruction) is only going to add to that problem. Populations do need some control - if keeping family size down to 2 children is the answer then why are we arguing? It is, however, up to the individuals how they attain that and all this man is saying is that people should be given help (whatever help they ask for, so long as it is legal) to attain that goal.

Edited February 2, 2009 by LadyPakal

[noggin]

You have your view and that is fine. Others feel differently and, as you expect your views to be respected, you have to respect their views as well. Otherwise you are trying to force your will onto others & where is that different to what happened 65/70 years ago?

Indeed, I know that others feel differently and of course I respect their right to have their own views. I might not agree with them, but they are as entitled as I to think how they want to.

What I object to apropos what we are talking about, is ....where are the unborn babies' rights? They have no choice whether they survive or are killed by the one who is supposed to nurture them.

I know that abortion goes on. I know that it always has done and always will. I know that if it was made illegal, then it would be back to back-street abortionists. I know all that.

But, I happen to consider that abortion is wrong.

NB Lady Pakal, I have pm'd you.

Edited February 2, 2009 by noggin

[LadyPakal]

Seen and replied - no worries!

[Devonian]

Do they? That is news to me. In all of my life, which is 53 years, I have only ever come across ONE woman who doesn't think that abortion is wrong and even she said it would be wrong to have more than one.

The trouble is that all you see and read in the media is the gobby, loudmouthed types of women who bang on about "a woman's right to choose". There is a silent, huge, huge majority of women for whom the idea of aborting unborn babies is totally abhorrent. A woman is "designed" to give birth and equipped to nourish and give comfort to her babies and children.....it is against Nature for her to kill them, whatever their age, whether born or still being carried within her.

Perhaps Porritt could take a leaf out of his own book and top himself, but that wouldn't do......no doubt he would feel it necessary to stay around to dictate which babies should be allowed to live and which ones should be condemned to death.

I feel very strongly about this subject.

Noggin, you are quite at liberty to objection to abortion. But, I must say I object very strongly to your use of Nazi analogy and the word 'dictate' (let alone 'gobby' and 'loudmouthed'). Your claim to know what the majority think is no more than that.

You are also, frankly, not conveying the truth about what J. Porritt said to anyone reading here. Again, I am sorry to say that as well but the truth is he is not dictating to anyone and is not in any position so to do.

[Gray-Wolf]

I parent a 'special needs' child.

I think ,though you have every right to hold your own opinion, it seems naive of you to see all terminations as 'wrong'. I have to agree that to bring a child full term just to watch it die (and it's very limited existance impact upon the rest of the family, possibly leading to more deaths) is cruel and inhuman when we could stop the tragedy from even existing.

I think humanity boobed by not addressing birth control in tandem with health care in the developing world.

[Methuselah]

I parent a 'special needs' child.

I think ,though you have every right to hold your own opinion, it seems naive of you to see all terminations as 'wrong'. I have to agree that to bring a child full term just to watch it die (and it's very limited existance impact upon the rest of the family, possibly leading to more deaths) is cruel and inhuman when we could stop the tragedy from even existing.

I think humanity boobed by not addressing birth control in tandem with health care in the developing world.

Agree absolutely, G-W...A thread for abortion, anybody?

[laserguy]

Noggin, I must say I object very strongly to your use of Nazi analogy.....

I trust you're equally outraged at whichever AGW type it was who famously likened hardened sceptics to 'Holocaust deniers'?

An abortion thread? Feel free but count me out,and let not the words 'abortion' and 'climate change' be spoken in the same breath again.

[Devonian]

I trust you're equally outraged at whichever AGW type it was who famously likened hardened sceptics to 'Holocaust deniers'?

I said 'object'.

I don't think holocaust deniers are nazis so the comparison is not entirely valid, but it's not a term I'd use, so, yes, I'd object to that as well.

[laserguy]

I said 'object'.

I don't think holocaust deniers are nazis so the comparison is not entirely valid, but it's not a term I'd use, so, yes, I'd object to that as well.

Ok,sorry Dev. Boy it's a mess,innit?

[Solar Cycles]

I parent a 'special needs' child.

I think ,though you have every right to hold your own opinion, it seems naive of you to see all terminations as 'wrong'. I have to agree that to bring a child full term just to watch it die (and it's very limited existance impact upon the rest of the family, possibly leading to more deaths) is cruel and inhuman when we could stop the tragedy from even existing.

I think humanity boobed by not addressing birth control in tandem with health care in the developing world.

I agree there with you GW, I think when a woman has been raped, then of course abortion should not be condemmed. But through careless sexual practices,

well that is just plain wrong!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

An over reaction? So, you approve of Porritt's suggestion, do you?

Very emotive subject this, but noggin are you aware of the nine times rule?

Re abortion there are those that 'pump out' kids like confetti rather than think of the longterm consequences. Abortion isn't right answer [and I confess accepting/agreeing that for some women in some circumstances it is wholly reasonable] BUT keeping numbers down is.

BFTP

Edited February 3, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Thundery wintry showers]

My experience is that people's views on abortion are generally strong- and varied. As for Noggin's experience that the vast majority are dead against abortion, to keep a long story short- there might be some confirmation bias there.

As for keeping numbers down, while encouraging excess abortions probably isn't the best of policies, I do think there needs to be more emphasis on encouraging people to think before they have children. In my experience there is a fair amount of social pressure in many circles, particularly on women, to have children or be seen as unnatural. For example, take Noggin's argument against abortion here:

A woman is "designed" to give birth and equipped to nourish and give comfort to her babies and children.....it is against Nature for her to kill them

...and replace the bit at the end with "it is against nature for her not to have children", and you're left with a popular line of argument used against women who don't want children. Or for men, the argument that when they get married, unless their wives are unnatural, they'll want children and it would be selfish not to heed their wives' wishes.

Thus, although very few people would actually be prepared to admit it (even to themselves), there are probably some parents out there who chose to have kids, at least in part, because it's what you're supposed to do when you grow up, and if you don't you might be rejected for being different. Or even because not having kids didn't even enter the mind as a possibility, because the unwritten rule is that as you get older, you get married and you have children. The same applies to having extra kids after having had the first one or two. I don't think it's a very healthy situation, really.

[PersianPaladin]

'I feel very strongly about this subject.'

We'd never have guessed.

As for '"designed" to give birth and equipped to nourish and give comfort to her babies and children' try telling that to my body, which is only interested in naturally aborting them.

But you know what - that is not the subject of this thread. Population growth is a problem - many countries already have more mouths than they can feed. Growth of bio-fuels (taking away arable land from food growth, as well as the rainforest destruction) is only going to add to that problem. Populations do need some control - if keeping family size down to 2 children is the answer then why are we arguing? It is, however, up to the individuals how they attain that and all this man is saying is that people should be given help (whatever help they ask for, so long as it is legal) to attain that goal.

Population growth is certainly NOT a problem. This is a common misconception.

What is the problem? Greed and over-usage of resources to fund the fixed assets of a global economic system based and controlled by globalist and fraudulent fractional reserve banking. Its based on competition and excessive wastage of resources for the purposes of power and competition between nations and subjugation of groups.

We can fit the entire world population on a landmass the equivalent size of Australia; provide plots of land for each family for sustainable agriculture and use the rest of the world as a resource (not that I'm saying we SHOULD do that mind you). Instead; we choose the current system of greed and resource exploitation by a select few - for the domination of the many. This is leading to extra fuel to the fire and makes nature respond and react to our wasteful ways.

We need to get back to harmony and balance with the earth again.

Edited February 4, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Methuselah]

Population growth is certainly NOT a problem. This is a common misconception.

What is the problem? Greed and over-usage of resources to fund the fixed assets of a global economic system based and controlled by globalist and fraudulent fractional reserve banking. Its based on competition and excessive wastage of resources for the purposes of power and competition between nations and subjugation of groups.

We can fit the entire world population on a landmass the equivalent size of Australia; provide plots of land for each family for sustainable agriculture and use the rest of the world as a resource (not that I'm saying we SHOULD do that mind you). Instead; we choose the current system of greed and resource exploitation by a select few - for the domination of the many. This is leading to extra fuel to the fire and makes nature respond and react to our wasteful ways.

We need to get back to harmony and balance with the earth again.

I pretty much agree with what you say PP...It's just that your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow? IMO, population growth most certainly is a problem; it's just that greed, you highlight, stands in between seeing the problem and actually doing the right thing...Whatever that is!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

The problem re. overpopulation is mainly lack of birth control in developing countries (which is mainly down to the prevalence of rigid gender roles and poor living conditions, both of which encourage high birth rates). Populations in the developed world are generally fairly constant. As a result we are also seeing a large increase in the percentage of people who live in areas with dreadful living conditions.

Thus, any policies on abortion in the developing world would merely be scraping the surface anyway. My points about women being pressured into having children or being unnatural does apply in the UK, but on nowhere near the scale that it does in most developing countries.

But yes, I do think greed is an even bigger issue than population growth.

[laserguy]

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...te-science-4939

Very interesting - whether you're a paid-up believer,die-hard sceptic or somewhere inbetween.

[Gray-Wolf]

"Actions speak louder than words"

We've heard a lot of 'vote catching' words but we've seen very little in the way of meaningful action. The developed world was never going to really put it's money where it's mouth was now was it?

The old 'if it's not broke why fix it?' addage springs to mind. Until it's really 'broken' (and demonstrably so to the point that every sceptic has to grudingly accept it) then humanity will not act and ,moreover, will seek to make the problem worse by keeping to it's present path in the meantime.

[laserguy]

"Actions speak louder than words"

We've heard a lot of 'vote catching' words but we've seen very little in the way of meaningful action. The developed world was never going to really put it's money where it's mouth was now was it?

The old 'if it's not broke why fix it?' addage springs to mind. Until it's really 'broken' (and demonstrably so to the point that every sceptic has to grudingly accept it) then humanity will not act and ,moreover, will seek to make the problem worse by keeping to it's present path in the meantime.

Ah well. If 'the climate' doesn't get us,the politics surely will. Seems we're up the creek without a paddle,whichever 'side' you're on. GW come join me across the ether in a pint and a smoke and we'll while away a few hours with Roy Harper. An unashamed AGW believer but I couldn't live without the guy! We're all passengers on the same bus,my friend.

[Gray-Wolf]

Ah well. If 'the climate' doesn't get us,the politics surely will. Seems we're up the creek without a paddle,whichever 'side' you're on. GW come join me across the ether in a pint and a smoke and we'll while away a few hours with Roy Harper. An unashamed AGW believer but I couldn't live without the guy! We're all passengers on the same bus,my friend.

Met Roy on a few occasions so we'd better hide the smokes! Insofar as AGW is concerned I've known since '85 that we'd do didly to avert the worst (predicted) impacts. At that time David Bellamy (in his AGW 'phase') was telling us that we could either act now (in 85) or forget it and party on down 'till the end.......I knew we'd do nowt so I partied......and still am! :lol:

[noggin]

Deleted. New thread started.

Edited February 9, 2009 by noggin

[PersianPaladin]

The problem re. overpopulation is mainly lack of birth control in developing countries (which is mainly down to the prevalence of rigid gender roles and poor living conditions, both of which encourage high birth rates). Populations in the developed world are generally fairly constant. As a result we are also seeing a large increase in the percentage of people who live in areas with dreadful living conditions.

Thus, any policies on abortion in the developing world would merely be scraping the surface anyway. My points about women being pressured into having children or being unnatural does apply in the UK, but on nowhere near the scale that it does in most developing countries.

But yes, I do think greed is an even bigger issue than population growth.

But is population growth really an issue?

I hold the view that it is not. Its the issue of land ownership and resource usage which dictates the peripheral population pressures and dependencies. We have no moral highground in the west to speak of 'developing' countries' overpopulation when our nations have so dictated their plight.

Give this a quick gander: -

http://www.sdnetwork.net/files/pdf/Too%20M...ople_%20web.pdf

Edited February 9, 2009 by PersianPaladin