Author Topic: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)  (Read 53215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
25% is the figure I hear all the time, of pregnancies that end in miscarriage.

Wikipedia says 25% of pregnancies miscarry by the 6 week mark, so maybe that's it.

Person B is the fetus, fluffy.

Wikipedia is full of ****, or at least misrepresenting their facts [do not rely on Wikipedia for factual information, as I keep telling people around here].  The vast major of conceptions (stable fusion of cellular membranes of sperm and ovum) are naturally terminated by the human body after implantation but before first week is complete.  Upwards of 90% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted according to developmental genetics.

It is possible that 25% of detected and confirmed pregnancies result in miscarriage prior to week 6, but that is different from spontaneous abortion, which is what Battuta was referring to.

Most products of conception are incapable of life.  Truthfully, a fertilized egg in which chromosomes are intact and pair correctly, and which then develops successfully through pregnancy is exceedingly rare in the grand scheme of things.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 

Offline High Max

  • Permanently banned
  • 29
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
I don't know about any of you, but I feel that this thread is getting creepy.
;-)   #.#   *_*   ^^   ^-^   ^_^

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
25% is the figure I hear all the time, of pregnancies that end in miscarriage.

Wikipedia says 25% of pregnancies miscarry by the 6 week mark, so maybe that's it.

Person B is the fetus, fluffy.

Wikipedia is full of ****, or at least misrepresenting their facts [do not rely on Wikipedia for factual information, as I keep telling people around here].  The vast major of conceptions (stable fusion of cellular membranes of sperm and ovum) are naturally terminated by the human body after implantation but before first week is complete.  Upwards of 90% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted according to developmental genetics.

It is possible that 25% of detected and confirmed pregnancies result in miscarriage prior to week 6, but that is different from spontaneous abortion, which is what Battuta was referring to.

Most products of conception are incapable of life.  Truthfully, a fertilized egg in which chromosomes are intact and pair correctly, and which then develops successfully through pregnancy is exceedingly rare in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. The stat came from a bio class so I figured it was reliable, but I'd never found anything to back it up (until now, thank you!)

 

Offline TESLA

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 27
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
GODWIN.

Please.

This was almost turning into a level-headed debate on common ground!

wha?

Its a valid point, I could easily have used the Imperial Japanese's Unit 731.
My point was not an over use of an analogy or anything and relevant to the discussion.
In order to find his equal, an Irishman is forced
to talk to God.

There are three types of people in this world: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who wonder what happened.

 

Offline iamzack

  • 26
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
Turambar, you're kind of turning into the left-wing Liberator.

Look, let's face it, any boundary we set between 'life' and 'non life' is arbitrary. We can't even decide why a human being is alive but a rock isn't - all the lines are blurred. Birth provides a nice, convenient boundary - or, alternatively, the current third-trimester viability thing enshrined in law.

The third trimester viability doesn't work when applied to my "it's a person hijacking organs" thing. Unless a woman can induce labor at any time after she is banned from abortion, it's a violation of her bodily autonomy. I feel her consent to have another person living inside of her can be revoked at any time in the same way that she can revoke permission to have sex with her at any time before or during intercourse.

PS: This may be hard to believe, but Turambar is the troll, not me.
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline Turambar

  • Determined to inflict his entire social circle on us
  • 210
  • You can't spell Manslaughter without laughter
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
yup, i'm in here basically to provoke liberator, trashman, and spardason for my own amusement.  I don't actually believe that murdering 2 year olds is ok, i just thought i could get a rise out of high max. 

i do actually believe that getting nationalized healthcare will damage the corporate-owned corrupt system here, and that we need to do that whenever possible though.  the country needs to go back to being for the people, not just the top 1% of people and their unknowing pawns like lib.
10:55:48   TurambarBlade: i've been selecting my generals based on how much i like their hats
10:55:55   HerraTohtori: me too!
10:56:01   HerraTohtori: :D

 

Offline iamzack

  • 26
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
the country needs to go back to being for the people, not just the top 1% of people and their unknowing pawns like lib.

This country was founded and the government set up such that the rich had all the power. So actually putting the power in the hands of the people at large is, well, destroying America's foundations.
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline High Max

  • Permanently banned
  • 29
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
i just thought i could get a rise out of high max
But you didn't get it like you wanted :p I have control and I know if I did, the target would become me, and I didn't want that, so I let the others argue it more and get into detail. But really, this topic will probably get closed sooner or later and if not, probably cease to get posted in sooner than later.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 08:39:37 pm by High Max »
;-)   #.#   *_*   ^^   ^-^   ^_^

 

Offline Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Steam
    • Something
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
i do actually believe that getting nationalized healthcare will damage the corporate-owned corrupt system here, and that we need to do that whenever possible though.  the country needs to go back to being for the people, not just the top 1% of people and their unknowing pawns like lib.
Yay, healthcare thread #3!  Or is that #4? :p

More on the not-topic, I have a hypothetical for you, iamzack, and I'm not really implying anything by asking beyond my own honest curiosity.  Let's say, since it seems reasonably feasible to do so, that medical science advances to the point where it is possible to construct a completely-artificial womb, capable of supporting an embryo at just about any stage of development to full-term.  Let's say that doctors are capable of transferring an embryo from a human womb to this artificial one while maintaining its viability via a procedure that carries no risks to the woman beyond those of a normal abortion today, since that also seems reasonable enough.  Given that sort of situation, where the "hijacking organs" claim could be negated by a simple transfer, and where the resulting baby could be put up for adoption just the same as a baby carried to full-term today, with no additional obligations placed on the biological mother, would you still see a need for full-fledged abortions to be performed?  It may be a somewhat silly scenario, but I'd like to know if your objections to pregnancy would be acknowledged under it.

 

Offline Blue Lion

  • Star Shatterer
  • 210
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
I don't know about any of you, but I feel that this thread is getting creepy.

This thread was creepy when it started!

 

Offline iamzack

  • 26
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
Given that sort of situation, where the "hijacking organs" claim could be negated by a simple transfer, and where the resulting baby could be put up for adoption just the same as a baby carried to full-term today, with no additional obligations placed on the biological mother, would you still see a need for full-fledged abortions to be performed?

I don't understand the question. If it were possible to remove the fetus without harming it, there would be no debate. If the fetus can be saved without forcing the mother to carry it, who would argue for killing it?
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
That's the answer he was looking for.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
I'm going to stop you right here, since the examples you're citing aren't entirely in the mold of what we're discussing.  Both of your cases involve the medical treatment of a singular entity, the afflicted person in question; no matter whether you consider it a human being or a bundle of cells, in the case of abortion, it's a given that there's something genetically distinct there.  And even setting those two examples against each other, the broken arm is a result of a random accident (hell, people can break their arm by tripping over something in their house) through no fault of the person involved, whereas smoking-induced cancer is the predictable result of a lifetime's worth of conscious choices...I'd say the abortion issue falls far closer to the latter.

Your later posts though pretty much prove that your making the assumption that pregnancy implies some sort of negligence on the part of both parties. Simple fact is that contraception isn't 100%. You can take responsibility about sex, you can both use contraception and still get pregnant.

Given that, it's pretty silly to claim that penis + vagina = pregnancy therefore they need to take responsibility.

That's on the same level as claiming that because someone went and climbed a mountain they should have known that they could injure themselves. Now you say that this is a medical procedure only affecting the injured person but you've missed the rather subtle point that someone else now has to risk their own life to get the guy off the damn mountain. :p Depending on the conditions that could actually be a significant risk. Would you really claim that if there was any risk to the mountain rescue people that they should simply tell the guy to take responsibility rather than risk their lives to get him?
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Steam
    • Something
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
That's the answer he was looking for.
Pretty much.

Your later posts though pretty much prove that your making the assumption that pregnancy implies some sort of negligence on the part of both parties. Simple fact is that contraception isn't 100%. You can take responsibility about sex, you can both use contraception and still get pregnant.

Given that, it's pretty silly to claim that penis + vagina = pregnancy therefore they need to take responsibility.
I'm fully aware that 98% isn't equal to 100%, and that even if both parties are using contraception, the small potential for pregnancy still exists.  Reasonably-informed people who choose to have vaginal intercourse presumably know about this potential beforehand.  It's like choosing to walk around outside in a thunderstorm: the odds that you'll get hit are still very low, but they do exist, and unless you're dumb as a brick, you know this to be true even as you walk.  As I alluded to before, there are forms of mutual sexual activity that convey absolutely no risk of inadvertent pregnancy.  The way I see it, if you want to be 100% sure, stick to those methods and skip the penis + vagina altogether.  Otherwise, come to terms with the fact that there's going to be that 1% chance.

Quote
That's on the same level as claiming that because someone went and climbed a mountain they should have known that they could injure themselves. Now you say that this is a medical procedure only affecting the injured person but you've missed the rather subtle point that someone else now has to risk their own life to get the guy off the damn mountain. :p Depending on the conditions that could actually be a significant risk. Would you really claim that if there was any risk to the mountain rescue people that they should simply tell the guy to take responsibility rather than risk their lives to get him?
Maybe it's the fact that I have some truly significant back pain going on at the moment, but I'm having a hell of a time wrapping my head around the analogy you're trying to make. :p This answer is probably completely off from where you were going, but I will say that the rescue people also make that free choice to risk their own lives by the profession they chose, even if it means saving people whose own stupidity put them in danger in the first place.  They could just as easily refuse to perform said rescues by seeking work elsewhere.  Like I said, I didn't really get your point, so I don't even know if that makes sense.

 

Offline iamzack

  • 26
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
They way I see it, the woman did not sign any contract with the fetus and has no legal obligation to it. She can revoke her permission at any time the way you can revoke permission for a friend to stay the night at your house at 2am. It's not the most polite thing to do, but it's not illegal to be rude. :P
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline High Max

  • Permanently banned
  • 29
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
It's rude if the friend has nowhere to go, but there is a huge difference between a friend and your own child and a big difference between giving a stranger your kidney and having your own flesh and blood occupy your uterus briefly, and your uterus isn't cut out and donated.

It is always sad when a person cares about a little so-called right like that over their love ones and babies. But sadly in western culture, people tend to care more about themselves, possessions, sex, fame and fortune, and so-called fun and games and whatever they want more than people, even caring more about it than their own husband or baby. To make matters worse, they don't take responsibility and they look for scape goats to blame. That is seen as both childish and selfish. Seems that people are changing into heartless robots ariound here. Let's see how bad it gets in 20 years, if humanity doesn't destroy itself with its heartless and immoral train of thought. We also see an extreme rise in heartless feminazis who want absolute power.

Plus, just because something is not written in a law doesn't make it right. So if it became legal to kill someone I hate or take something from them, would that be right? Once the path of moral decline starts, it slowly increases until you get something like the Roman empire, then it destroys itself. But bad selfish societies deserve that since they did it to themselves, I suppose. I'll just sit back and watch the show. Who knows the outcome?

But I know arguing it won't do any good, so does this topic have a point since they never go anywhere and no one changes their mind? So I should stop right now. GD threads tend to always end up in fights, and arguments will last forever as long as others think differently.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 11:08:03 pm by High Max »
;-)   #.#   *_*   ^^   ^-^   ^_^

 

Offline iamzack

  • 26
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
We also see an extreme rise in heartless feminazis who want absolute power.

 :rolleyes:
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline StarSlayer

  • 211
  • Men Kaeshi Do
    • Steam
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
 :rolleyes:  Feminazis?  Like in Wolfenstein?
“Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”

 

Offline High Max

  • Permanently banned
  • 29
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
It was a funny term I saw recently when reading about certain things :D
;-)   #.#   *_*   ^^   ^-^   ^_^

 

Offline iamzack

  • 26
Re: Overpopulation(or lack thereof)
That term is the mark of guys who have no idea what they're talking about, and blame all their problems on women.
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.