The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Don't want an abortion don't get one.
Win.
Let the liberals celebrate killing their unborn as some kind of right and let them believe that it's a victory.

Nearly every person people getting them are poor blue state voters.
Double win.

Only a certified idiot would try to stop it.

[All Darc]

WHat is the name of the implant, a easy procedure, that use a kind of spring, implanted in the falopian tubes, to avoid pregnancy ?

A society that got money promoting sexual behavior of animals, with poor ethic, poor moral and poor responsability... Now pay the price. Diceases, poor people with a lot of babies, f...up families, people who don't give a damn for each other but use just as instrumnet of physical pleasure. Plus drugs, HIV...

I wonder if was possible to create a micro chip that would be implanted when people born, and able to avoid any conception of a baby. Only after people proof to be economic and psychologic able to raise a child, the chip would be removed. This save humnanity.
If only decent people had child...

[redpoint5]

Was going to avoid this discussion, but since All Darc was asking... the implant is called an intrauterine device (IUD). It's basically just a piece of copper placed in the uterus, and can be effective for a decade or more.

These should be made free for anyone that wants it since the cost is so low along with low side effect risk (since it doesn't mess with hormones). It's instantly reversible too just by pulling it back out.



Reproduction is a human right. In the not distant future (100 years) we will have the opposite problem of insufficient reproduction and we will have to devise ways to incentivise people to have children.

At some point we will need to implement some sort of genetic engineering since we have mostly eliminated survival of the fittest from applying to our species. Lots of tough problems to solve in the future, with lots of angry people on both sides of the debate. Ultimately we will have genetic engineering though, and after enough time goes by people will just find it to be normal, just like going to a hospital to deliver a baby is considered normal these days.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

In the not distant future (100 years) we will have the opposite problem of insufficient reproduction and we will have to devise ways to incentivise people to have children.

Only as viewed through the current lens of cornucopian growth based free market economic principles. As fossil energy and finite resources slip away from us, there will be less and less societal surplus and we will once again be forced back to living at a scale of dependency on real time solar energy flows and muscle power. Which will service a much smaller population. 1/4 to 1/3 the current size. 100-200 years from now. Getting there painlessly is the big question.

[All Darc]

Human right... here we go...
Civilization...

Rights are not above everything... If someone have no capability of be a decent mother or decent father, they should have no kids, since kids also have rights.

I'm surprised with people against sterilization of crap people (who already did sh...t) but are in favor of such people make a abortion how many times they wish, even after 12 weeks (when fetus feel pain).

Yes, humans are getting weaker and dumber (dumb people breed more), due medicine allowing survival of the weak (thanks God), and genetics will try to solve it. I told it several times, but most in other Forum.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Human right... here we go...
Civilization...

Rights are not above everything... If someone have no capability of be a decent mother or decent father, they should have no kids, since kids also have rights.

I'm surprised with people against sterilization of crap people (who already did sh...t) but are in favor of such people make a abortion how many times they wish, even after 12 weeks (when fetus feel pain).

Yes, humans are getting weaker and dumber (dumb people breed more), due medicine allowing survival of the weak (thanks God), and genetics will try to solve it. I told it several times, but most in other Forum.

That's the definition of a right, something which is above all else.

I completely agree with you that people who are unfit to care for children should not be having them. Most anyone would agree with that. The problem is in defining who is unfit to have children, since it's a subjective definition. Unfortunately the negative consequence of protecting reproductive rights is that some children will suffer, and society will have a cost to bear.

Children don't have the right to be born into certain ideals for healthy family and community. If that were true, then we'd be taking babies from Nigeria and around the world to ensure their "rights" are protected. This isn't to say that we should eliminate child protective services, only that the world isn't fair in distributing advantages evenly to all people.

It was completely offensive to me to apply for a marriage license. I'm not asking the government to get married; I'm telling them. In the same vein, I'm not going to apply for a license to have children.

You cannot pass a law that prevents unwanted or negligent parents from having children. It wouldn't be effective, especially when the consequence for violation is something like a fine or jail time. Poor people don't have the means to pay a fine and won't even factor that into their sexual behavior.

I've already proposed something that would go a long way to curbing unwanted pregnancy, which is state funded IUDs. Perhaps our girls should be getting them by default, so that having children becomes a conscious decision rather than the inevitable outcome of indiscretion.

The rights for women to get abortions in the US are too broad. Nearly everyone agrees that abortions for reasons of convenience (avoiding inconvenience) is immoral. We allow many immoral things though, so that alone isn't justification to make it illegal. We could at least set some limit of on how much development we'll allow until abortion is no longer permitted. I understand the "all or nothing" arguments from both sides, but that doesn't actually get us anywhere.

[All Darc]

Ok, do you think the government should revoke the request of a drive license to be allowed to drive?

Who define this, who defines that... We could start by targetting the worses, since it's clear a easy definition.

At present time we have indirect incentives to the worst people do the worse.

Edited: Compare to Nigeria, a very poor country, it's not fair, in the same way you can't compare minimum wage of Finland with Nigeria. You can't think in a global ways, in our actual state of human organization among Earth.

Good motherhood and good parenthood are not very connected with money in developed countries. Good parents will have just what they can afford, and would have ethic and morals.
You can give 1 million dollars to a crap couple, and they will still be a crap as parents.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Ok, do you think the government should revoke the request of a drive license to be allowed to drive?

Sure, but that isn't a natural right. We naturally speak, naturally defend ourselves, naturally seek to reproduce... which is why they are rights. We don't by nature drive cars.

Who define this, who defines that... We could start by targetting the worses, since it's clear a easy definition.

No, it's not easy to define at all. You'd get racists saying "clearly black people are worse". You could even make the case that women over 35 years old shouldn't be allowed to reproduce since they are at much greater risk for delivering a baby with any number of problems associated with "Geriatric Pregnancy".

I can't think of many things more difficult than determining who should be allowed to reproduce, or something most likely to spiral out of control into some sort of Nazi-like eugenics. It's so difficult that we just shouldn't restrict it, not to mention that it's impossible to enforce.

At present time we have indirect incentives to the worst people do the worse.

Agreed. We can change that though.

Edited: Compare to Nigeria, a very poor country, it's not fair, in the same way you can't compare minimum wage of Finland with Nigeria. You can't think in a global ways, in our actual state of human organization among Earth.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words, if we're talking about human rights, then it applies to all humans. It's quite impossible not to think of Nigeria when applying the logic to local government.

Good motherhood and good parenthood are not very connected with money in developed countries. Good parents will have just what they can afford, and would have ethic and morals.
You can give 1 million dollars to a crap couple, and they will still be a crap as parents.

My idea of state subsidized IUDs directly addresses this fact. It won't eliminate all bad outcomes, but it certainly will make things better while not infringing upon human rights. The most effective way to affect outcomes is to provide proper incentives to people. Outright banning never works.

What do you propose, and give me the specifics? If you ban certain people from reproducing, how do you enforce it? What would be the criteria for being allowed to reproduce?

[All Darc]

There are people in the deep of a sh...t hole enough to we say they are not good for parenthood/motherhood. Violent criminal addicted to drugs, pedophiles, prostitutes who use drugs and lives with violent criminals. Alcohoolic people, generating fetus alcoholic syndrome.

We already say who can or who cannot raise children, and we already take kids out of parents due bad conditions of living or due bad morals.


Tell me where I said black people are crap ?
Point in my text, please.

I said crap people. There are crap white people and crap black people, and good black people and good white people.

If you associate crap with black, to call me a racist or nazi, I think is you who thinks blacks are inferior.
You are seeing colors here, not me.

We could reverse you thoughts and say that racist politics prefer that a lot of blacks people on misery or in bad moral born and get poor education, to allow whites have bether jobs and feel superior.
But the same thing applies to whites in desgrace situation, having a lot of kids, poor morals, to help better social classes to keep in high classes, since it would be cheap workmanship. Instead of a racist politic negligence it would be arristocratic politic preferences.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

We already say who can or who cannot raise children, and we already take kids out of parents due bad conditions of living or due bad morals.

In the US we have no restrictions on who can raise children. They are temporarily removed from custody for safety reasons, but are eligible to be returned if parents correct those safety concerns.

Tell me where I said black people are crap ?
Point in my text, please.

I didn't say you said black people are crap. Please point out where I said that. Probably just a misunderstanding.

My point is that the slippery slope argument absolutely applies here. Nazis didn't start off just mass murdering Jews, they slowly progressed to it. If we restrict reproduction to people meeting certain criteria, it will lead to seriously bad consequences.

You still haven't explained how such a restriction could be enforced. Without enforcement, there is nothing further to discuss. Who would be forced to give up their reproductive rights? Would the enforcement be permanent, or temporary?