Thanks for the invite, Nerd.

Here's my take on abortion. The zeitgeist about babies and human overpopulation has to change. Babies suck— literally. The world is being destroyed by humans growing like a runaway bacterium on a Petri dish, and a show like The Duggans is aired on TV, as if they're some sort of role model.

This is insane: we're losing 125 species every day, drinkable water is going scarce, millions are straving, the ice caps are melting, on and on. Humans are even killing tiny polyps in the Great Barrier Reef through blanching and acidification. No life can escape the effects of humanity of depravity.

Attitudes have to change. In a rational world no baby should be born except into a loving, capable and small family. Food, education, emotional needs, security should be readily available.

If we can prevent one girl from have an unwanted baby, it's possible to prevent every female. Why isn't it happening?

Views: 263

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think what you said was racist. The person you mentioned was racist, it's condescending to have a double standard toward reverse racists. Some groups (I'm thinking of religions more than races) want to overbreed in hope of dominating by sheer number. Counteracting by also having lots of kids? I don't think a breeding war is going to help.

Race is mentioned in abortion by pro lifers: the claim that more blacks have abortions, therefore it's a racist plot. White supremacists say the same thing, that abortion is wiping out white babies.
Where I live differential abortion promotion IS practiced. Aboriginal women are encouraged to abort. White women are encourage to keep their babies. That is eugenics.
Yeah, I'm still waiting to see all these leeching welfare mothers everyone keeps talking about. Shit, my income's been "0" for over a year and a lot of charities have told me I make too much money.
I had a co-worker who was on food stamps before she got a job. She wan't making enough to buy food but, they took her off food stamps because she was making to much money.
Do take into consideration that there are different nationalities here. In Canada for example, welfare is easy to get on, pays enough to live by, gets you access to subsidised housing that only uses a quarter of your income, and you get all free dental, optometry, physio, ALL medical. Many single mothers cannot afford to leave welfare because the shit job they'd get could not come close to covering the perks of welfare in Canada.

So here, people leach, because the system forces them into it. If there were transition periods for people to get back into the workforce, of if medical coverage above and beyond Healthcare was provided to all who were below certain poverty levels, then we could begin to see change.

One things stands true tho, the more help that's offered to people in need, the more the "people in need" population increases. It is a positive feedback loop out of which there is no exit.
Your topic seems to be more about overpopulation than abortion. Why not change the tax system to encourage less children - - say a personal deduction for 1 child, no deduction for a second child, and a tax liability for each child after 2?
abortion vs overpopulation. Well, I think they're very much linked. Sure abortion can be seen as a private choice, but my private choice to abort three times, although there were indeed personal reasons, were also very much influenced by the fact that we are overpopulated. My personal reasons mostly remain personal.

Government taxing controls. That's been tried in both directions in Quebec.

The baby boom in Quebec ended in the later half of the sixties. The government created baby bonuses (yes, actual bonuses) and fecundity only went up ever so slightly. By the late 70s, we had UNIVERSAL ACCESS to HIGHER education. Educated woman simply want babies less. At one point, around 1986, Quebec's fertility rated dropped to something like 1.3 per couple and (by then the baby bonuses were eliminated since they were obviously not working), among the lowest in the world.

Then the policy of UNIVERSAL access to education got chopped, low and behold fertility rates started on the up again, ever so slightly, by 1992s is was back up at 1.6. The government wanted more babies to encourage French culture, so they reinstated baby bonuses, in the form a free (almost) daycare plan, which encouraged people (well really single mothers) to reproduce once more (white people seem more pliable by money), (sarcasm) but at that point, fertility only went up a little again, now Quebec is back up at a 1.7, the last time it was that hight in Quebec, back in 1976!!! Must admit tho, those numbers differ per region. Fertility rates are lowest in Montreal and Quebec, interestingly, where most immigrants flock to...

The conclusion we can draw with the social experiment in Quebec, is that the education of the women has much more impact on natality than government fiscal policies (whether promoting birth or not).

Another concern with regressive fiscal policy is it punishes the children. On the other hand, UNIVERSAL ACCESS to HIGHER education changes the MINDSETS of women.
I have a problem with standing in the line marked "pro-choice" because there are a lot of creepy people in this line too. The people who say "yeah, she can have as many abortions as she likes, they are her right, it's not a baby til it's born.....etc yada yada". Then on the other side you have the freaks who think a medically indicated chemical abortion at week 4 is murdering a child and they would happily kill the doctor who gave out the meds.

I'm all for birth control, I'm especially keen on subdermal birth control (under the skin, slow release, works for months). I'm in favour of the morning after pill. I'm in favour of early abortions for when birth control fails and an unprepared woman really doesn't want to carry a child. I think expecting a pregnant girl or woman to go full term then put the unwanted baby up for adoption is asking a hell of a lot and is not in the interests of the woman.

However, I am not in favour of late term abortions. If pro-choice means I have to be ok with late abortions that aren't medically necessary for the life/health of the mother then I'm going to have to stand somewhere else. If a woman has been so stupid and selfish that she has left the decision of whether to abort or not til the last minute for whatever reason then she can hold on another month til the baby is viable. I'd rather my taxes went to paying for caesareans and premmie care than late term abortions.

I'm also not in favour of women using abortion as a form of birth control. "Opps, I'm pregnant again, silly me, off I go to the abortion clinic again." Really. A birth control stuff up I can understand, an accident, a lack of knowledge, whatever, fine.....first time. If she turns up for a second abortion I think she needs, afterwards, to go on a more reliable form of birth control - like the one under the skin. If she is so stupid as to fall pregnant a third time and expect an abortion I'd give it to her because she is obviously too stupid to be breeding in any case, and the gene pool can do without her, but really time for either a lobotomy or to have her tubes tied. I get really annoyed with girls who think it's fine to keep getting pregnant and aborting. If you have unsafe sex there's the morning after pill, use it. Grow a brain.

So, I might be in my own queue. Abortion is fine as long as it's a last resort. Abortion is fine as long as it isn't a near viable baby that's being aborted. Abortion is fine - the first time. This sums up my platform. Pity I don't have a catchy name..hmm......Pro-intelligent choice?
Disliked the third one hey, well I'm soooo sorry.
Turns out on was on the pill since the age of 14, at age 28, when the first one happened. I was still on the pill when the second one happened, and using condoms, third time I used the condom, then the morning after pill.

The point is with being pro-choice, is you have to take your judgment out of the picture and TRUST That WOMAN's decision, as Dr Tiller used to say. That's what it all comes down to.

Funny you suggest subdermal, cuz they're had pretty bad results. Sporadic bleeding, low success. The pill is still the most effective method.

I knew women my age by then who'd never use the pill or condoms, had had regular sex with boyfriends for years and never gotten pregnant. We are simply not in control of our biology.
Hey TNT666,

Ok, if you really got pregnant three times when you were conscienciously doing all the right things to not get pregnant then I feel for you, and I'm sorry that what I wrote included you.

Birth control worked for me til I wanted to get pregnant, then I got pregnant and had a baby, went back on birth control and it worked for me again. The only girls I know to have had multiple abortions tend to be either chaotically drug fucked or stupid, or both. So, given my experience I formed the views I formed.

We clearly aren't reading the same web pages because what I read gives great efficacy results for sub-dermal, with the advantage that they aren't affected by forgetfulness or vomiting/diahorrea. From what I have read they sound like a good way to reduce unwanted pregnancies in more chaotic women.

So yes, I'm willing to say you are an exception to the rule on which I based my comments, but that doesn't mean I'm throwing out my rule or my comments. I don't "TRUST That WOMAN's decision" as you put it because a lot of people, many women included, are morons.

You're not a moron, you're just freakishly fertile.
In addition to that, I'd been asking my family doctors (I moved a fair bit during my college and university years, so have had quite a few) to get tubal ligation since the age of 14, when I was forced onto the pill. They all said no, patriarchal bunch of bacturds. In Canada, you CAN'T have tubal ligation until you're 35 with 2 children.

When I moved North, my family doctor, after I'd told him about my three abortions, within a 2 year period, said "Ok, is next week good for you?" Oh what joy. But such frustration to have not been allowed to have it before.

My first and third were done in a private clinic in Montreal in the 1994-95, done well. The second pregnancy, I had instant knowledge of and instant detection and doctor visit, so the abortion was done very early, but was botched by incompetence, and now I have endometriosis because of that stupid Women's College doctor in Ontario.

Yes indeed, 2 years of freakish fertility as you say. Men who prefer wider hipped women fall for me cuz they know I'm SO fertile. Not anymore.

I really really wish women who ask for ligation can get it no matter what, and I'm constantly encouraging men to have vasectomies. It's of great importance to me.

I cried at my first abortion, the attendant asked "are you sure this is what you want" and I said 200% certain. I am crying for the pain of the thousands and thousands of women who've had to carry a pregnancy through against their will. I had been suicidal those days, trying to walk in front of cars, because I was a little too late in "signing" up for the abortion. Back then, hospitals in Quebec did not perform abortions after week 12. I had returned to the country on week 12 but there was a standard bureaucratic wait of one week, which put me at week 13, therefore ineligible. That's when I really freaked and cried straight for several days. Until the D/C was done.

There is NO WORSE FEELING of RAPE than to having something growing in your body that you do not desire.
Do you know people who've had it earlier?



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service