UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

to be legal...ask yourself why that is. GOP candidates like Dr. Oz are recoiling from the electorate's reaction to their promises of total bans on abortion...why is that happening?...until you figure that out you'll always be pushing on a rope and making things worse

btw, banning abortions will never eliminate them...they'll just become "Illegal abortions"....focus needs to be directed on efforts to dramatically reduce "Unwanted Abortions" through well funded programs to make Contraception widely and easily available...Sex & Sexuality Education so that everyone acts more responsibly when it comes sexual matters...and finally, more programs and legislation to make it easier for women to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Right now, the extreme "Pro-Life" contingent is treating all women as no more than "Brood Mares" with no say in their own reproductive decision making...even when they are totally innocent victims of rape, incest or spousal abuse...this is inhumane and you're seeing the blowback right now...it will never stop until abortion is again a legal OPTION for women to take.


Link: http://w

For anyone on the fence about unborn children and abortion, please take a look at "The Silent Scream"

(no message)

Don't use government benefits as an argument to stop procreation. Allow procreation, and withhold benefits. Make people earn their own living, but allow them to procreate. I think procreation is one of the most fundamental rights humans have. If they don't have that right, then they've got nothing.

Let's start with that, Idiocracy.

The fundamental principle, in my mind, is that people have a right to reproduce. That is probably the most fundamental right there is, in my opinion...the right, as a couple, to push your genes into the next generation.

The fact that we as a society have taken steps to stop natural selection?...that is on us as a society.

I would rather (i) return to allowing natural selection (cutting societal benefits / eliminating equality of status, and increasing freedom / equality of opportunity), and (ii) allowing procreation as a fundamental right (and allow the strong to give it a go on their own to survive and procreate). That is a natural society that will improve over time.

I would oppose (i) preventing natural selection, while (ii) preventing procreation. That is an evil society that will stagnate and devolve into tyranny.

And if you were to have an IPA with that selective breeding also produced that 16oz of awesome.

Given the obvious benefits of selective breeding, do you want to live in a world of reverse darwinism? (Which is what is going on at present)

Humanity can selectively breed whatever it wants, and sell the result at the price the market will bear.

That doesn't mean humanity can selectively breed itself using the force of government. That is another issue entirely.

(Just rereading your post to try to understand your point.)

This should be so so obvious after witnessing a little thing like CoVid-19.

I understand the anti-government sentiment, it makes sense given the empirical evidence. Humans suck at governing.

“The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.” I think this is Edward Wilson.

If we are to survive, we have to evolve, this is just one idea that may contribute.

I'd say both are an absolute certainty.

As to competent leadership...we cannot guarantee that, which is why the nation will eventually perish like all other nations before our nation.

I am actually quite tolerant of the government. Like I said, I'm not even sure the American Revolution was justified. So, however anti-government my posts are perceived to be, I'm actually quite tolerant of government.

I agree we have to evolve. I don't think that means centralized management of procreation. I think that means that we should stop coddling the weak, and reinstate natural selection. Evolution happens through post-procreation selection, not through procreation management.

And if you really thought that, you'd be in favor of abortion.

At it's base, governments exist because (according to Dunbar's Number) we can't function when we lose our humanity because we lose empathy over the number of people you can actually "know", around 100.

Every human has a right to life.

Every human has a right to procreate.

It is the height of hubris, and I will say that it is evil, for me to say that I can tell another human that they have no right to live, or that they have no right to procreate (e.g., because of some vision I have of a future potential society that may or may not ever exist). It is far better to let them try and fail than it is for me to impose my will over their will, and never give them the chance to live or procreate at all. I would never do that. And, I would oppose anyone who tried to do that to me, or anyone else.

There are natural harms, and there are human evils. Natural harms exist without us doing anything. You lament that, and I understand that lamentation, and join with you. But creating a human evil in response to a natural harm only makes things worse. It is better for individuals to freely compete against the natural harms, and try to overcome them, than it is for humans to impose human evils on other humans. Natural harms just are. Aggressions (by one human against another) are just wrong.

But I don't think further debate will resolve our differences of opinion here.

Cheers.

Eh, fuck that. We'll talk about something else. Have a good night!

(no message)

There are other things to control to improve society and to improve freedom, which are far less harmful than direct control of procreation.

Isn't that what you would want for your future great great grandchildren?

It's more than that though, what cripples a society built on capitalism is an excess of non-producers, whether it be by age or otherwise.

I know, it's an uncomfortable truth, but a truth nonetheless.

An excess of non-producers is not actually a problem in a capitalist society. They die on their own, by their own choices and actions (or lack thereof).

It is only in a socialist society that an excess of non-producers is a problem.

Honestly, I complain about a lot when it comes to government (and I reserve the right to continue to use free speech to challenge anything), but there are actually very few things that I'd be willing to take up arms regarding (far fewer things than our founding fathers, that is for sure...my tolerance for totalitarian government is far greater than theirs was...I can't say I would have been for the Revolution). This issue might be one of them, though. If the US got to the point where the federal government controlled my right to have a kid, then the federal government can go fuck itself. I am actually quite confident that it would never get to that point, thankfully.

The OP was about abortion, that topic always seems to make me think about freakonomics lately.

There are a bunch of people who have the traits necessary to be good parents with bad genetics and vice versa. I think that the next evolution of humanity (necessary for the species survival) needs to take thought like this into consideration.

But I understand why you object.

I'll leave you with this, think about the worst hereditary afflictions that exist, they could all be eliminated.

We have several choices, and some are obviously more beneficial than others:

1) Go back to a primarily capitalist society. Give freedom, with its benefits and its burdens.

2) Stay with a pseudo-capitalist / pseudo-socialist society that is willing to tolerate the cost of non-producers. Try to moderate the burdens of freedom without collapsing society as a whole.

3) Move to a totalitarian society to centrally manage these issues, for the benefit of society as a whole, at the expense of the individual and the family.

I prefer 1 or 2. I'd fight against 3. I don't think you can control procreation in any way without going to option 3.

It doesn't have to be a totalitarian society or some sort of dystopia, it could just be humans deciding that we want to take the next level of control over nature. We have the technology, we just lack the "intelligence" collectively, and it's only going to get worse.

If you are talking about voluntary participation in taking control over nature, we can have a discussion. I think the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe...they are all here for humanity to exploit.

If you are talking about imposing the will of some humans over the will of other humans regarding procreation, then the chances I will go along are slim. I oppose aggression of some humans over others. I'm willing to let all humans test themselves against nature/reality, and to take control of that reality if they are able.

(no message)

Jennifer Lopez vs. Asua Reserva. That would explain why you are so fervent in your beliefs...and yet, I'm partaking of Asua Reserva tonight, and you are probably not partaking of Jennifer Lopez. So, who has a better grasp of reality? :-)

By the way, this is an excellent Spanish wine. And, in my opinion, the Reserva is better than the more expensive Gran Reserva. I usually go for the top of the line, but in this case, I can recommend the middle of the road.

(no message)

(no message)