Can the Doctors 100% guarantee that stillborn = dead? When James Brown was born, he appeared to be stillborn. They kept trying to get him to breathe and he eventually did. Good thing that he did too. Hellen Keller, you might know her story, was born deaf and blind. People need to let life run its course and stop being so quick to abort based on information that a doctor gives. I am 100% against abortion, but that's the mother's job to decide and not mine.
I'm curious if you would feel the same about it if you were put in a similar circumstance as the father in the video. Would you let your morals interfere with the quality of life with your own child?
I'm a woman, so I will never be a father. If I were to ever get pregnant, then I'd have my baby and deal with whatever comes.
How about situations where if they don't take the baby out(and the baby is likely dead or going to die), then the mother has a high probability of death during childbirth? What would you choose in that situation?
Can the Doctors 100% guarantee that stillborn = dead? When James Brown was born, he appeared to be stillborn. They kept trying to get him to breathe and he eventually did. Good thing that he did too. Hellen Keller, you might know her story, was born deaf and blind. People need to let life run its course and stop being so quick to abort based on information that a doctor gives. I am 100% against abortion, but that's the mother's job to decide and not mine.
I'm curious if you would feel the same about it if you were put in a similar circumstance as the father in the video. Would you let your morals interfere with the quality of life with your own child?
I'm a woman, so I will never be a father. If I were to ever get pregnant, then I'd have my baby and deal with whatever comes.
How about situations where if they don't take the baby out(and the baby is likely dead or going to die), then the mother has a high probability of death during childbirth? What would you choose in that situation?
I doubt you are going to get a real answer for this because this person isn't exactly attuned to reality.
Oh, so you do not give a *** about anyone else? Egh, neither does anyone else it seems so thank you for adding to it.
Phoenix.Excelior said:
The truth it is, it is economically and militarily smart to have a large young poulation within reason. I think the government has legitimate interest in making sure we dont age our society artifically.
*Facepalm* I just do not even want to respond to this one.
If you don't think the second part is true, then you should take a realism international theory class.
There is an important economic princple that says you must have more people entering the workforce than those retiring. (This is obvious because the workforce is what supports the elderly + themselves). How you do insure that the work force continues to grow faster than the retiring population? You could:
A. Kill people who are going to retire (this seems dumb)
B. Encourage families to have kids (seems logical)
Every adult in the work force started out as a baby. If there are two adults in a family and they both retire at the same time, then ideally they would have two kids in that family who are also entering the work force.
When you do not have this balance on the younger side of the population you age your population. When you age your population your national security INCREDIBLY decreases. When you age your population your economy decreases.
Two step forwards and one step back is still advancing.
Over a long enough timeline you will hit a point where things will be unsustainable. Be it through scarce resources in food or jobs.
Two step forwards and one step back is still advancing. Over a long enough timeline you will hit a point where things will be unsustainable. Be it through scarce resources in food or jobs.
Well, Ideally we wont hit that point for a long time with proper economic resource management. China is one of the WEAKEST countries in the world because of this poor resource management. Their GNP will be/is second highest this year, but their net value is incredibly low.
Point being, there needs to be a balance, not an excess.
Besides, abortion deaths in contrast to overall birthrate in the world is downright minuscule unless you span it over decades like Mabrook has. In which case would be a significantly more balanced population than the projected outcome of one where abortion is banned entirely.
Just to stop you from trolling: There is an important economic princple that says you must have more people entering the workforce than those retiring. (This is obvious because the workforce is what supports the elderly + themselves). How you do insure that the work force continues to grow faster than the retiring population?
The planet has a carrying capacity. That system does not work honestly. We need more people entering the work force yet as technology improves the workforce needs less people? IE assembly lines, what are all these people going to do, add to the unemployment rate? Overall I think the unemployment rate would like to have a word with you on that. Another thing just stop *** saying "troll" every thread about everything. It is really old and accomplishes nothing.
You really do troll a lot. You assume that anything you dont understand is rediculous.
Also, we still need A LOT of medical jobs. There will always be plenty of jobs for people so long as they are properly educated/trained. You act like the problems in the world are magically gone because we have more machines, there are still tons of problems just not the same ones we were facing before.
Oh, so you do not give a *** about anyone else? Egh, neither does anyone else it seems so thank you for adding to it.
Phoenix.Excelior said:
The truth it is, it is economically and militarily smart to have a large young poulation within reason. I think the government has legitimate interest in making sure we dont age our society artifically.
*Facepalm* I just do not even want to respond to this one.
If you don't think the second part is true, then you should take a realism international theory class.
The number of abortins in the U.S. has trended down every year since there were 1.6 million in 1990. Meanwhile, we had the highest number of babies ever born in 2007 at a little over 4.3 million, and birthrates are staying pretty high. What does the ratio have to be before an artificially aging population becomes a problem?
EDIT: Nevermind, I just saw you were talking about retirement vs. children born, and I couldn't find any numbers on how many people retire each year.
There is an important economic princple that says you must have more people entering the workforce than those retiring. (This is obvious because the workforce is what supports the elderly + themselves). How you do insure that the work force continues to grow faster than the retiring population? You could:
A. Kill people who are going to retire (this seems dumb)
B. Encourage families to have kids (seems logical)
Every adult in the work force started out as a baby. If there are two adults in a family and they both retire at the same time, then ideally they would have two kids in that family who are also entering the work force.
When you do not have this balance on the younger side of the population you age your population. When you age your population your national security INCREDIBLY decreases. When you age your population your economy decreases.
What about when you overpopulate?
That seems to be a factor that you are ignoring.
We control animal populations for this exact purpose.
this factor should not go away when adding in the human element.
sure, reproducing is good and fine if you reproduce to replace.
but kate and her 8 can take a *** hike.
Just to stop you from trolling: There is an important economic princple that says you must have more people entering the workforce than those retiring. (This is obvious because the workforce is what supports the elderly + themselves). How you do insure that the work force continues to grow faster than the retiring population? You could: A. Kill people who are going to retire (this seems dumb) B. Encourage families to have kids (seems logical) Every adult in the work force started out as a baby. If there are two adults in a family and they both retire at the same time, then ideally they would have two kids in that family who are also entering the work force. When you do not have this balance on the younger side of the population you age your population. When you age your population your national security INCREDIBLY decreases. When you age your population your economy decreases.
What about when you overpopulate? That seems to be a factor that you are ignoring.
That is definately a problem in places like China. We're not really to that point in america yet, we're actually just barely meeting the requirements to replace our retiring workforce.
Just to stop you from trolling: There is an important economic princple that says you must have more people entering the workforce than those retiring. (This is obvious because the workforce is what supports the elderly + themselves). How you do insure that the work force continues to grow faster than the retiring population?
The planet has a carrying capacity. That system does not work honestly. We need more people entering the work force yet as technology improves the workforce needs less people? IE assembly lines, what are all these people going to do, add to the unemployment rate? Overall I think the unemployment rate would like to have a word with you on that. Another thing just stop *** saying "troll" every thread about everything. It is really old and accomplishes nothing.
You really do troll a lot. You assume that anything you dont understand is rediculous.
Also, we still need A LOT of medical jobs. There will always be plenty of jobs for people so long as they are properly educated/trained. You act like the problems in the world are magically gone because we have more machines, there are still tons of problems just not the same ones we were facing before.
So our populace would be narrowed down to hospital construction and medical work, to help deliver even more babies?
Just to stop you from trolling: There is an important economic princple that says you must have more people entering the workforce than those retiring. (This is obvious because the workforce is what supports the elderly + themselves). How you do insure that the work force continues to grow faster than the retiring population? You could: A. Kill people who are going to retire (this seems dumb) B. Encourage families to have kids (seems logical) Every adult in the work force started out as a baby. If there are two adults in a family and they both retire at the same time, then ideally they would have two kids in that family who are also entering the work force. When you do not have this balance on the younger side of the population you age your population. When you age your population your national security INCREDIBLY decreases. When you age your population your economy decreases.
What about when you overpopulate? That seems to be a factor that you are ignoring.
That is definately a problem in places like China. We're not really to that point in america yet, we're actually just barely meeting the requirements to replace our retiring workforce.
Just to stop you from trolling: There is an important economic princple that says you must have more people entering the workforce than those retiring. (This is obvious because the workforce is what supports the elderly + themselves). How you do insure that the work force continues to grow faster than the retiring population? You could: A. Kill people who are going to retire (this seems dumb) B. Encourage families to have kids (seems logical) Every adult in the work force started out as a baby. If there are two adults in a family and they both retire at the same time, then ideally they would have two kids in that family who are also entering the work force. When you do not have this balance on the younger side of the population you age your population. When you age your population your national security INCREDIBLY decreases. When you age your population your economy decreases.
What about when you overpopulate? That seems to be a factor that you are ignoring.
That is definately a problem in places like China. We're not really to that point in america yet, we're actually just barely meeting the requirements to replace our retiring workforce.
not if you factor in the illegal immigrants :P
Well, we need to take that into account. It's bull ***that we dont have it under control yet. I said in the other thread the only way to really ever stop that is to get Mexico on par with the USA and Canada in terms of quality of living.
I dunno.
I think you both are exaggerating things to an extent :/
All I know is I'm paying for it because grandma and grandpa decided to have 600 kids(baby boomers).
That's one of the reasons why SSI is in the shitter.
Just to stop you from trolling: There is an important economic princple that says you must have more people entering the workforce than those retiring. (This is obvious because the workforce is what supports the elderly + themselves). How you do insure that the work force continues to grow faster than the retiring population?
The planet has a carrying capacity. That system does not work honestly. We need more people entering the work force yet as technology improves the workforce needs less people? IE assembly lines, what are all these people going to do, add to the unemployment rate? Overall I think the unemployment rate would like to have a word with you on that. Another thing just stop *** saying "troll" every thread about everything. It is really old and accomplishes nothing.
You really do troll a lot. You assume that anything you dont understand is rediculous.
*** and assumptions. So if I do not agree with something I do not understand it and thus I think it is ridiculous? Is that because anything that I say against someone else is auto-trolling and must mean I am just an idiot because anything against, say you for example, is wrong?
Phoenix.Excelior said:
Also, we still need A LOT of medical jobs. There will always be plenty of jobs for people so long as they are properly educated/trained.
So everyone will work in hospitals and doctors offices? We can pull money out of our *** too so that everyone can afford their training and schooling. Then everyone else can build said buildings and thus construction jobs? Meanwhile we just keep *** and then when the planet can not hold us anymore we just all die? Right? Is that what you basically think? Have you never looked at the stages of population growth? How you hit a peak and then start into negative population? Japan would be an example of this as they in negative growth. The US would be experiencing minor growth or minor decline if it was not for immigration boosting us up a ton. The idea of a system that relies on more people coming in to support it *** everyone over in the end as it can not sustain itself on this planet.
Go reread my posts.
I gave examples of job industries in which to expand.
I also explained that there is a such thing as overpopulation, however, the USA is not anywhere near that figure atm.
When quality of society improves so will the affordability and quality of education.
About trolling:
Forget it. You just like to argue with me and I'm tired of listening you.
