Supine wrote:
As for your questions, the Supreme Court Justices wrote comments on why they supported legalized abortion. It had nothing to do with environmental protection, worry of unsustainable population growth, or climate change. They remarked abortion needs to become legal so that it can empower women financially. That is to say so that women can compete with men in a capitalist for profit world of business that values employees that work long hours, travel when told, and are not restricted by having to take care of children. Abortion allowed women to opt out of the demands and obligations of motherhood in their view. Secular anti-evolutionist they were given their religiosity in their mental conceptions that biological evolution was flawed unfair and probably immoral by the physiological and anatomical asymmetry of sexual reproduction. In other words, "Mother Nature" was a big old meanie and ridiculously unfair for allowing females to get impregnated but not males. For American capitalist and secular religious construction of the fundamental immorality of all of that was the more moral and rationale "force" in the world and not flawed, stupid, mean "Mother Nature."
In my view the world is not over populated, won't be, and under replenishment through low birth rates is a bigger problem for some countries. I also support global warming and hope this min-ice age the earth is in quickly warms up and the glaciers melt. Humans are closer to tropical creatures per the Theory of Evolution and can survive naked in hot environments like the Amazon Jungle, with enough forested protection from the sun, but would die naked in the cold winters of Wisconsin and North Dakota.
I heard an interesting fact today (interesting to me anyway!)... The only consistent difference between males and females in the mammalian kingdom is basically that females carry large immobile gametes while men carry smaller, more mobile gametes.
Contraception has indeed been a powerful force helping the feminist movement. The down sides are of course that women may have forgotten what the feminine is in the midst of all the bra burning and heady freedom. Maybe women were forced or opted to emulate the masculine role in order to survive in the capitalist men's club. Women are free to behave badly, to behave like mysogonists, but are they free to behave like women? I do worry that girls would make very different choices about who they had sex with if they had to think instead, do i want to have this man's babies? I'm not sure we've really seen what women are capable of yet. It has been development in a limited, establishment that is slow and resistant to change.
That said, and more towards the OP, I am not in favour of being precious about preserving life at all costs. In fact I think we need a bit less holier than though morality and a bit more kindness, e.g. start putting people down if they are, for example, savage or severely mentally impaired. Let zygotes be gone! Think how many sperm get wasted by young men every day!! Billions!! No one is crying over trying to save them. But women are always made to feel guilty if they aren't precious about their eggs. Its just a bias of current society.
The main thing that the government's role has to be in all this, in my humble opinion, is to allow for choice. There are all kinds of people in the world, and so its only right especially on contentious issues such as abortion etc to allow each person to make their own decision. The right of the individual to choose should be sacrosanct.
Steve3007 wrote:
If they nuke England and thereby destroy British civilisation, as you've described, I guess I'll have to leave British civilisation behind and go live in Wales.
Ha! Poor old Blighty. Is it me or do Americans all secretly want to bump us off?! I want to be around for global warming. Bring me sunshine!
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell
