Expert prognosis for the planet

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

If the number of abortions that occur is enough to have a significant effect on population size then we really need to reconsider our moral stature... I recommend not lumping abortion matters into population control in future discussions.

Well, abortion doesn’t directly reduce family size, but it does reduce young pregnancies and pregnancy out of the ideal time for family planning. There is a positive feed-forward effect on future families in terms of age of pregnancy, income, education, etc that is negative. If we institute a max child per family then vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions will be necessary. I don’t see the big deal or the moral issue.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Well, abortion doesn’t directly reduce family size, but it does reduce young pregnancies and pregnancy out of the ideal time for family planning. There is a positive feed-forward effect on future families in terms of age of pregnancy, income, education, etc that is negative. If we institute a max child per family then vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions will be necessary. I don’t see the big deal or the moral issue.

Are you seriously proposing that the government should enforce population control by forcing people to undergo medical procedures to include terminating a pregnancy? What if they refuse? You realize the last time this was seriously considered the room was covered in swastikas right?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

If the number of abortions that occur is enough to have a significant effect on population size then we really need to reconsider our moral stature... I recommend not lumping abortion matters into population control in future discussions.

i don't want to get into a debate about it, but it's not an insignificant number.
as reported to the CDC.

"A total of 619,591 abortions for 2018 were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. "

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

i don't want to get into a debate about it, but it's not an insignificant number.
as reported to the CDC.

"A total of 619,591 abortions for 2018 were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. "

Well shit... That's a lot more than I thought there were...

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Well shit... That's a lot more than I thought there were...

Yea, frankly I was surprised as well. That's not one of those numbers that is common knowledge.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Are you seriously proposing that the government should enforce population control by forcing people to undergo medical procedures to include terminating a pregnancy? What if they refuse? You realize the last time this was seriously considered the room was covered in swastikas right?

We haven’t reached a point of necessary, global wars over resources and famine. We will. It is inevitable. Unless we become interplanetary or have massive natural disasters that reduce the population or naturally reduce population growth then we will have zero choice except to institute population control measures. Why and to who it was considered before is far different than what I’m suggesting. I’m not talking about eugenics. I’m talking about an equal mandate. Public sentiment would naturally shift, so such a mandate might not be necessary. It would likely become stigmatized to have a large family, or it would be necessarily avoidable because another mouth just couldn’t be supported. The latter doesn’t actually seem to make an impact. In fact, poverty tends to increase family size, as Hand Rosling pointed out. Regardless, it could be too little too late by then, so it may be necessary to be proactive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

i don't want to get into a debate about it, but it's not an insignificant number.
as reported to the CDC.

"A total of 619,591 abortions for 2018 were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. "

The thing is abortions generally prevent unwanted pregnancies like a pregnancy out of wedlock/relationship or a pregnancy from an affair or a pregnancy of a teen, but most studies suggest abortions don’t change family size significantly. Why? Because most mothers already decide on family size irrespective of when, so when they reach 3 or 4 kids or whatever is their number then they will get their tubes tied or whatever. There is obviously a reason why we don’t see huge families of 10-30 on the regular.

For a mandate on max family size, abortions would be required to avoid a significant fine or whatever. The reason and effect would be very different.

I believe the global number of artificial abortions is around 45 million per year.

[Transport3r]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The thing is abortions generally prevent unwanted pregnancies like a pregnancy out of wedlock/relationship or a pregnancy from an affair or a pregnancy of a teen, but most studies suggest abortions don’t change family size significantly. Why? Because most mothers already decide on family size irrespective of when, so when they reach 3 or 4 kids or whatever is their number then they will get their tubes tied or whatever. There is obviously a reason why we don’t see huge families of 10-30 on the regular.

For a mandate on max family size, abortions would be required to avoid a significant fine or whatever. The reason and effect would be very different.

I believe the global number of artificial abortions is around 45 million per year.

You get it. Access to abortion is a good thing. It keeps kids out of families that aren’t ready for them or don’t want them.

Side note: if our species gestated in men rather than women, there would be drive through abortion places within a mile of every Home Depot.

[soundman98]

wtf is this...

Originally Posted by Transport3r

You get it. Access to abortion is a good thing. It keeps kids out of families that aren’t ready for them or don’t want them.

Side note: if our species gestated in men rather than women, there would be drive through abortion places within a mile of every Home Depot.

um, that would only be if one were to assume the gender roles as we currently have were to remain--power to impregnate has generally led to the idea of males being the more powerful gender historically. i think the reality is we would see the gender roles reversed, but of course, that would be normal to us, as it would've happened eons ago for our species. and then we'd be having the exact same conversation but with opposite genders...

just let me know when the delorean gets back.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

wtf is this...



um, that would only be if one were to assume the gender roles as we currently have were to remain--power to impregnate has generally led to the idea of males being the more powerful gender historically. i think the reality is we would see the gender roles reversed, but of course, that would be normal to us, as it would've happened eons ago for our species. and then we'd be having the exact same conversation but with opposite genders...

just let me know when the delorean gets back.

Pretty sure he was joking around, but you are right.

[soundman98]

i honestly can't tell what's a joke anymore in this thread.. maybe it's time to go back to cat pics.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by soundman98

maybe it's time to go back to cat pics.

.

[Capt Spaulding]

That's an unusual looking cat.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

That's an unusual looking cat.

There aren't any cats in Australia, that's why they have so many mice.