just a hypothetical question but exactly what does a country do if it's too crowded? you can't just up and expand without war. other than forced limits on kids how would a govt address that?
Because we need to be smart about it and address it globally sooner than later. In a perfect world people would self regulate. but we don't live in a perfect world. and to not address it leads to far worse than forced limits.

"Person" - I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hobodeluxe: just a hypothetical question but exactly what does a country do if it's too crowded?

you mean like hong kong? or manhattan?

prosperity solves the population problem, so help get countries rich. that way women have more options than babby farm and people don't need to have a dozen kids to help in the rice paddy

albo: prosperity solves the population problem

ninjakirby: prosperity solves the population problem

and they're distinctive because they're so massively out of the US norm

ninjakirby: albo: prosperity solves the population problem

A vagina is not a clown car... Yikes!

Bravo subby

Hobodeluxe: just a hypothetical question but exactly what does a country do if it's too crowded? you can't just up and expand without war. other than forced limits on kids how would a govt address that?

I think this is why many if not most Chinese people support the one child policy - it makes sense.

albo: and they're distinctive because they're so massively out of the US norm

Eh. In numbers, yes but in the belief that they should 'be fruitful and multiply', no not really. The point I was trying to make was that money isn't the only factor here, cultural influences have a lot to do with it.

I think forced abortions are unethical, but if its that or watch your country collapse from the inside out, I understand the need for the policy.

I suspect however, that China probably has one of the largest contraception awareness policies in the world, which is really the right approach to take.

DamnYankees: I think this is why many if not most Chinese people support the one child policy - it makes sense.

Would it make sense in America?

DamnYankees: I think this is why many if not most Chinese people support the one child policy - it makes sense

but it will have a disasterous externality--because they value boys and try to have their one kid be male, they're raising generations that won't have enough women for the men. so they're going to have tens of millions of frustrated young men, which is a prescription for societal problems.

lunchinlewis: Would it make sense in America?

Right now? Probably not. I don't think we're overpopulated. But I'm not really a demographer.

albo: but it will have a disasterous externality--because they value boys and try to have their one kid be male, they're raising generations that won't have enough women for the men. so they're going to have tens of millions of frustrated young men, which is a prescription for societal problems.

Yeah, its a problem.

here's an article on china's male surplus. it's 32 million extra men
NY Times (new window)

stupid nytimes web site

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11china.html?_r=1

I like this headline a lot. Nicely done.

/no, you whiners, it has nothing to do with my views on abortion
//I just like well worded trolling headlines

DamnYankees: Right now? Probably not. I don't think we're overpopulated

No, I didn't mean right now. I wonder how one would determine the point at which that type of policy kicks in.

lunchinlewis: DamnYankees: Right now? Probably not. I don't think we're overpopulated

No, I didn't mean right now. I wonder how one would determine the point at which that type of policy kicks in.

Ask a demographer. That's their job.

DamnYankees: Right now? Probably not. I don't think we're overpopulated. But I'm not really a demographer.

According to the 2000 census, the average number of kids per family is 0.90, and for families with kids, they average 1.86. How that comes out when compared with average death rates for a population growth, I don't know, but I think it's safe to say we're not anywhere near overpopulated.

Of course we do use something like 4x the amount of resources as anyone else so...

DamnYankees: Yeah, its a problem.

I think we're safe. All the young sexually stifled men will invade Japan, force them to create a legion of sex-robots at gunpoint, and then well.. problem solved.

In fact we could prevent the entire problem by simply funding Japanese research into robotics.

DamnYankees: lunchinlewis: Would it make sense in America?

Right now? Probably not. I don't think we're overpopulated. But I'm not really a demographer.

albo: but it will have a disasterous externality--because they value boys and try to have their one kid be male, they're raising generations that won't have enough women for the men. so they're going to have tens of millions of frustrated young men, which is a prescription for societal problems.

Yeah, its a problem.

For kittens.

ninjakirby: How that comes out when compared with average death rates for a population growth, I don't know, but I think it's safe to say we're not anywhere near overpopulated.

replacement rate is 2.1, and i think we're just over that, thanks to hispanics

Visualingo: "Person" - I do not think it means what you think it means.

The whole disagreement in a nutshell.

Of course, some people base it solely on when the biomass wholly exits the external orifice, and the development stage is irrelevant. That doesn't seem to mesh well with science. Others, or course, base it solely on when two genetically incomplete cells merge. That seems unsatisfying as well. And those two groups should let the grownups talk so we can figure this out. Which, of course, we can't. Or this whole thing'd be moot.

vygramul: The whole disagreement in a nutshell.

No its not. You can agree its a person and still be pro-choice.

DamnYankees: vygramul: The whole disagreement in a nutshell.

No its not. You can agree its a person and still be pro-choice.

Fascinating.

albo: replacement rate is 2.1, and i think we're just over that, thanks to hispanics

Was this an illegal immigration dig, or a Catholicism dig? Or just a Hispanics dig in toto?

ninjakirby: Was this an illegal immigration dig, or a Catholicism dig? Or just a Hispanics dig in toto?

no, not at all. the birthrate among hispanics is higher and is making up for the falling rate among other caucasians. i got that from an article a while back. i'll try to google some confirmation

I Said: I like this headline a lot. Nicely done.

/no, you whiners, it has nothing to do with my views on abortion
//I just like well worded trolling headlines

Agreed; most trolls try entirely too hard, and their desperation is almost visible. This one just had an understated classiness to it.

here you go
Link (new window)

DamnYankees: vygramul: The whole disagreement in a nutshell.

No its not. You can agree its a person and still be pro-choice.

Exactly. I say it's a person, but I'd rather have abortion be legal than have young girls get butchered by back-alley "doctors".

Hobodeluxe: just a hypothetical question but exactly what does a country do if it's too crowded? you can't just up and expand without war.

They can. Most of the people live in the eastern 3rd of the country. It's time to head those wagons west.

Savage Belief: They can. Most of the people live in the eastern 3rd of the country. It's time to head those wagons west.

Xinjiang, Qinghai, and Tibet are not the most hospitable areas.

Is India doing anything like this?

Hobodeluxe: just a hypothetical question but exactly what does a country do if it's too crowded?

It lets itself be bossed around by fetuses at the expense of actual living, breathing citizens, obviously.

brigid_fitch: DamnYankees: vygramul: The whole disagreement in a nutshell.

No its not. You can agree its a person and still be pro-choice.

Exactly. I say it's a person, but I'd rather have abortion be legal than have young girls get butchered by back-alley "doctors".

Forgive me for asking, but I don't think I understand your standard: what is it about young, female "persons" that makes it ok to be "butchered" by suburban doctors while other young, female persons are not ok to be butchered by back-alley "doctors"? Why the inequality between persons? Wouldn't that necessarily mean that they are lesser persons? And, if so, why consider them persons?

vygramul: what is it about young, female "persons" that makes it ok to be "butchered" by suburban doctors while other young, female persons are not ok to be butchered by back-alley "doctors"?

Either way the baby dies - might as well make it safe for the mom.

vygramul: brigid_fitch: DamnYankees: vygramul: The whole disagreement in a nutshell.

No its not. You can agree its a person and still be pro-choice.

Exactly. I say it's a person, but I'd rather have abortion be legal than have young girls get butchered by back-alley "doctors".

Forgive me for asking, but I don't think I understand your standard: what is it about young, female "persons" that makes it ok to be "butchered" by suburban doctors while other young, female persons are not ok to be butchered by back-alley "doctors"? Why the inequality between persons? Wouldn't that necessarily mean that they are lesser persons? And, if so, why consider them persons?

Basically, if a girl REALLY wants an abortion, she's going to do everything she can to get one. If abortion is illegal, she'll have to go to someone willing to perform one. That someone would most likely NOT be a real doctor. Now two lives are in jeopardy.

Keep it legal and you're assured that at least one of them gets to go on living. Oh, and you also end up with fewer babies being left in toilets and dumpsters.

DamnYankees: vygramul: what is it about young, female "persons" that makes it ok to be "butchered" by suburban doctors while other young, female persons are not ok to be butchered by back-alley "doctors"?

Either way the baby dies - might as well make it safe for the mom.

But even in the most liberal of estimates, there are several orders of magnitude fewer deaths of persons when abortion is illegal.

I'm not trying to argue pro-life v pro-choice (or anti-abortion v pro-abortion, if you prefer), I'm trying to understand what the difference is between two sets of persons, and either; 1) come up with why one set of persons would not be entitled to rights while another set is or, 2) come up with some agreement as to why it is still ok to be considered a person despite the lack of protections afforded all other persons.

RainWhenIDie: Is India doing anything like this?

The Chinese could curbstomp India so fast in an open war that America would barely have time to register outrage.

vygramul: I'm trying to understand what the difference is between two sets of persons, and either; 1) come up with why one set of persons would not be entitled to rights while another set is or, 2) come up with some agreement as to why it is still ok to be considered a person despite the lack of protections afforded all other persons.

Well, here's a way of thinking about - why is the mother obligated to keep the fetus alive? Even if you grant the fetus is a human being and has a right to life, why does the mother have any obligation to keep the fetus alive? Cut out the baby and let it live on its own. Why not?

oh, fark off subby.

DamnYankees: Cut out the baby and let it live on its own. Why not?

Duty of care. You could look it up.

vygramul: Visualingo: "Person" - I do not think it means what you think it means.

The whole disagreement in a nutshell.

Of course, some people base it solely on when the biomass wholly exits the external orifice, and the development stage is irrelevant. That doesn't seem to mesh well with science. Others, or course, base it solely on when two genetically incomplete cells merge. That seems unsatisfying as well. And those two groups should let the grownups talk so we can figure this out. Which, of course, we can't. Or this whole thing'd be moot.

Until it can survive outside the womb, it is a parasite, not a person.

vygramul: DamnYankees: vygramul: what is it about young, female "persons" that makes it ok to be "butchered" by suburban doctors while other young, female persons are not ok to be butchered by back-alley "doctors"?

Either way the baby dies - might as well make it safe for the mom.

But even in the most liberal of estimates, there are several orders of magnitude fewer deaths of persons when abortion is illegal.

I'm not trying to argue pro-life v pro-choice (or anti-abortion v pro-abortion, if you prefer), I'm trying to understand what the difference is between two sets of persons, and either; 1) come up with why one set of persons would not be entitled to rights while another set is or, 2) come up with some agreement as to why it is still ok to be considered a person despite the lack of protections afforded all other persons.

Okay, then look at it this way: *I* believe it's a person, but that's my religion talking. The mother may not believe it's a person. Science isn't even sure. So you keep it legal rather than have some screwed-up teenage kid further screwed-up by having to now take care of a baby. Or worse, like I said, leave it in a toilet or a dumpster. I'm not the type to force my beliefs on somebody else.

brigid_fitch: Basically, if a girl REALLY wants an abortion, she's going to do everything she can to get one. If abortion is illegal, she'll have to go to someone willing to perform one. That someone would most likely NOT be a real doctor. Now two lives are in jeopardy.

Keep it legal and you're assured that at least one of them gets to go on living. Oh, and you also end up with fewer babies being left in toilets and dumpsters.

One of the most influential "after-school specials" I saw as a kid was about a girl who died using a coat-hanger on herself. (I can't remember the name of the film.) It was a tragic, horrible choice she makes, and one that, being a man, I can only remotely appreciate. However, what I can appreciate is horrifying enough, so I'm not without sympathy.

The question is if the girl and the fetus are both persons, why are we uncomfortable with (say) 20,000 dead persons in back-alleys along with another 20,000 dead fetuses but comfortable with 1,000,000 dead fetuses with abortion legal? It makes easy sense to me for people who do not consider fetuses persons. I'm not sure I understand if you do.

40below: DamnYankees: Cut out the baby and let it live on its own. Why not?

Duty of care. You could look it up.

Has to be balanced with a woman's right to not be forced to carry something to term. Why is one more important than the other?

Gwendolyn: oh, fark off subby.

Come on, it's an amazing troll headline.

40below: Duty of care. You could look it up.

Learn something new everyday.

Freeside: Until it can survive outside the womb, it is a parasite, not a person.


Can't it be both?

Hobodeluxe: just a hypothetical question but exactly what does a country do if it's too crowded? you can't just up and expand without war. other than forced limits on kids how would a govt address that?
Because we need to be smart about it and address it globally sooner than later. In a perfect world people would self regulate. but we don't live in a perfect world. and to not address it leads to far worse than forced limits.

They could do what a decent Christian nation like the US wants to do (according to the type of person who wrote that headline)... deny health care to a large segment of the population and send large numbers of it's citizens off to die at war in exchange for useful resources.

vygramul: The question is if the girl and the fetus are both persons, why are we uncomfortable with (say) 20,000 dead persons in back-alleys along with another 20,000 dead fetuses but comfortable with 1,000,000 dead fetuses with abortion legal? It makes easy sense to me for people who do not consider fetuses persons. I'm not sure I understand if you do.

I'm NOT comfortable with it, but I can sympathize with some idiotic HS girl who screwed up & sees this as her only choice. Like Damn Yankees said--the baby's going to die either way, so might as well keep the mom safe.

I'm also completely against the death penalty. At least I'm not that hypocritical.

vygramul: why are we uncomfortable with (say) 20,000 dead persons in back-alleys along with another 20,000 dead fetuses but comfortable with 1,000,000 dead fetuses with abortion legal

There are many answers to this, but basically because we have no association with fetuses. There isn't an ingrained emotional switch that gets activated when we hear about it.

Why do you have a right to have a child?

If anything, that would appear to be society's right to accept/deny the birth, since society is the one that has to put up with your child, and later accept them into society itself.