Castanet

SmokeOnTheWater wrote:I would think it's lack of contraception that drives up fertility rates.

To some degree, but contraception is readily available, and yet we see number of children per adult among First Nations to be double the national average (and 9 times the national averge for ages 10 to 14). The reason people don't use contraception is because they don't want more children. Even most Catholics use birth control.

It has just dawned on me that the OP was likely throwing the video at the anti-any kind of birth control folks, which is a subset of pro-life. I suppose in that regard I can see how the title fits somewhat with the video, even though the idea that we are over populating is alarmist conspiracy theorist material.

By contrast, here is what the actual data shows:

Glacier wrote:Yes to some degree, but contraception is readily available, and yet we see number of children per adult among First Nations to be double the national average (and 9 times the national averge for ages 10 to 14).

I was not talking about Canada. You said " in some parts of the world ". Contraception is not readily available in some parts of the world and not all pregnancies are wanted.

Hogwash! I never said ALL pregancies are wanted! I'm merely relaying what scientists say drives fertility rates. If you would have watched the Mark Steyn video I posted, then you would know that the fertility rate among Pakistani immigrants living in Britan is the same as it is in Pakistan (between 8 and 9 per woman).

Glacier wrote:Hogwash! I never said ALL pregancies are wanted! I'm merely relaying what scientists say drives fertility rates. If you would have watched the Mark Steyn video I posted, then you would know that the fertility rate among Pakistani immigrants living in Britan is the same as it is in Pakistan (between 8 and 9 per woman).

* sigh *
I'm just stating my opinion that not all pregnancies are wanted.
Again .. I believe that lack of contraception drives up fertility rates more than wanted pregnancies. My opinion. K ?

Okay. The best way to bring contraception to the third world is to make them prosperous.

I'm still trying to figure out what this thread has to do with prolifers.

Theyre not pro life. Theyre anti abortion.

They are more into harassing people than they are into saving lives.

Glacier wrote:You claim you are Pro-Life - but at what cost to society and the future of this planet? I challenge you to watch this video and then make your comments.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECi6WJpbzE


In fact, EVERYONE should watch this video/series. It's not as entertaining as "Dancing with the Stars" but a heck of lot more educational and if you care at all about your future - you must watch it.

Excellent documentary. Though it's hard to believe we're in another bubble when it feels like we're still in a recession. If indeed it is another bubble, it's horrifying to think what would happen should it burst.

Sn0man wrote:Excellent documentary. Though it's hard to believe we're in another bubble when it feels like we're still in a recession. If indeed it is another bubble, it's horrifying to think what would happen should it burst.

2 words: zombie apocalypse. If you think things are bad in some third world countries, just imagine what Toronto or Vancouver would look like if the economy collapsed. Stock up on some assault rifles.

rideforever wrote:Theyre not pro life. Theyre anti abortion.

They are more into harassing people than they are into saving lives.

The problem that the pro-lifers have is that they are desperately trying to paint the “pro choice” movement as being at the other end of the spectrum from where they are. Problem is, nothing could be further than the truth.

The exact opposite of pro life is pro abortion. And where in the world today do you see pro-abortion? Nowhere. Well, not quite, but close. The closest parallel comes to us from China and its one-child policy, whereby if a woman who has already had a child gets pregnant again, she is forced to abort that child no matter where along the pregnancy she is. But even there, women are allowed to have one child without issue.

So there is NOWHERE in the world which is truly pro-abortion, which marches its women into abortion centres when they get pregnant because pregnancy is illegal except under specific circumstances.

But when we look at the pro-choice movement, what we see here is a woman’s right to choose… the right to choose to keep the baby (against pro-abortion) or the right to choose to not have the baby (against anti-choice). The pro-choice movement is, fundamentally, the middle of the road option.

And that is why the pro-life movement strives with every fibre of its being to paint the pro-choice movement in as evil a light as possible, because they have no choice but to do so: Without an “evil axis opponent” to rail against, the purpose of the pro-life movement falls apart.

Because in the end, the overarching doctrine of the pro-life movement (many of whom are right-wing conservatives who abhor government spending, high taxes and socialism) is inherently misogynistic and ultimately callous: Most care only about the baby before it is naturally born -- once the tyke is born the pro-lifers are usually staunchly against anything that could support the “parasitic underclass” such as free daycare, neonatal care, welfare and programs for orphans and unwanted children. Or in other words, once the baby is born, it’s on its own - their job of “protecting” it is over and done.

“Pro life”, indeed!

For any woman considering an abortion and having to confront a pro-lifer, I would suggest offering them this choice: that you’ll carry the baby to term and raise them to adulthood if the pro-lifer would carry the costs of doing so. Or to adopt the baby themselves, permanently and in writing, assuming all costs and responsibilities until the child turns 18. Get the pro-lifers to put their money where their mouths are, and most of them quickly shut up.

rekabis wrote:The problem that the pro-lifers have is that they are desperately trying to paint the “pro choice” movement as being at the other end of the spectrum from where they are. Problem is, nothing could be further than the truth.

The exact opposite of pro life is pro abortion. And where in the world today do you see pro-abortion? Nowhere. Well, not quite, but close. The closest parallel comes to us from China and its one-child policy, whereby if a woman who has already had a child gets pregnant again, she is forced to abort that child no matter where along the pregnancy she is. But even there, women are allowed to have one child without issue.

So there is NOWHERE in the world which is truly pro-abortion, which marches its women into abortion centres when they get pregnant because pregnancy is illegal except under specific circumstances.

But when we look at the pro-choice movement, what we see here is a woman’s right to choose… the right to choose to keep the baby (against pro-abortion) or the right to choose to not have the baby (against anti-choice). The pro-choice movement is, fundamentally, the middle of the road option.

And that is why the pro-life movement strives with every fibre of its being to paint the pro-choice movement in as evil a light as possible, because they have no choice but to do so: Without an “evil axis opponent” to rail against, the purpose of the pro-life movement falls apart.

Because in the end, the overarching doctrine of the pro-life movement (many of whom are right-wing conservatives who abhor government spending, high taxes and socialism) is inherently misogynistic and ultimately callous: Most care only about the baby before it is naturally born -- once the tyke is born the pro-lifers are usually staunchly against anything that could support the “parasitic underclass” such as free daycare, neonatal care, welfare and programs for orphans and unwanted children. Or in other words, once the baby is born, it’s on its own - their job of “protecting” it is over and done.

“Pro life”, indeed!

For any woman considering an abortion and having to confront a pro-lifer, I would suggest offering them this choice: that you’ll carry the baby to term and raise them to adulthood if the pro-lifer would carry the costs of doing so. Or to adopt the baby themselves, permanently and in writing, assuming all costs and responsibilities until the child turns 18. Get the pro-lifers to put their money where their mouths are, and most of them quickly shut up.

Great post. Unfortunately, the pro-life movement is based on emotion and not on logic. The logical approach to the debate escapes them. I believe all life is sacred but I have no right to tell any woman what she can and cannot do with her body. I do not judge others. But when one pro-lifer said to me that pro-choice would mean that if he chose to drive on the wrong side of the road, would that be OK?
How does one deal with such stupidity?

cliffy1 wrote:How does one deal with such stupidity?

You can't, presently our own house of parliament is blowing up over the abortion issue.
Several conservative MP's have been desperately trying to push anti abortion motions through the house in the past year.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/26/conservative-mps-accuse-harper-government-of-muzzling-them-on-abortion/
Trying things like doing an end run around "when life begins" (Woodworth/Benoit/Watson) or claiming to protect sex selective abortions (Warawa/Ambrose)
Harper, of course has refused to let the abortion debate be reopened and now they're blowing a temper tantrum.
The odd thing I don't get about their insistence to once again illegalize abortion is what is their plan after that ???? What will be the punishment for those women who abort illegally? Maybe if the "prolifers" thought with their brains instead of their emotions they might have more success in getting their motions passed. In order stop abortion, they need to find a way for a fertilized embryo to be removed and transplanted elsewhere. Until science can come up with a way to do that, granting personhood to a fetus who's sharing another body is an infringement on that woman's right to autonomy.
*edited to fix my link*

Nom_de_Plume wrote:The odd thing I don't get about their insistence to once again illegalize abortion is what is their plan after that ???? What will be the punishment for those women who abort illegally?

Kinda reminds me of that unenlightened time when you could get the death penalty for attempted suicide. (You are such a loser that you can't even off yourself successfully so we'll finish the job for ya.) That is where the anti-abortionists want to take us; the good old days of back alley coat hanger abortions.

Pro-lifer is a misnomer, the correct term is "pre-lifer" as they only care about one thing: Unborn fetuses. Once that baby has been born, they couldn't care less. raise it, adopt it, abandon it. Doesn't matter, it's now a living breathing human, and safe from the evil abortionists who wanted to prevent that from happening.

Their entire basis is that "all life is special". When an unwanted child however is abandoned, goes through social care, foster homes, and has no positive influence in their life, how "special" do you think that life feels? It's ok though, because at least they're alive right?

^^ Well put.

Omnitheo wrote:Pro-lifer is a misnomer, the correct term is "pre-lifer" as they only care about one thing: Unborn fetuses. Once that baby has been born, they couldn't care less. raise it, adopt it, abandon it. Doesn't matter, it's now a living breathing human, and safe from the evil abortionists who wanted to prevent that from happening.

Their entire basis is that "all life is special". When an unwanted child however is abandoned, goes through social care, foster homes, and has no positive influence in their life, how "special" do you think that life feels? It's ok though, because at least they're alive right?

Perfectly stated. No pro-lifer ever speaks of what they are doing to back up their argument after the 'saving of fetus'...oh ..wait...aside from their battle that there are tons of people (not them per-say) out there that want a child.... just not a child of a certain race, age, and of course he/she has to lack of any defect. Just saying. If every pro-life person would commit to adopting one of these babies, then they would hold a candle to wind... imo.