CDZ US Population Estimates If Abortion Was Always Illegal

[IsaacNewton]

It's not about population. It's about woman's rights.

And if Republicans believed in what they say, they would support the baby beyond being born. Not just before birth.

And they don't. In fact, once your born the GOP gets itchy for the death penalty.

GOP-- for the death penalty being applied to people convicted of the most terrible crimes through due process.
Democrats-- for the death penality for the most innocent among us, the unborn.

In your mind, I'm sure that is what you believe. It is as ridiculous as Suckabee's disgusting statement re 'ovens'.

Conservatives pretend to have morals and character, that's all.

How very Alinsky of you!

Pray to whatever god makes you happy.

 

[GHook93]

In 1960's a propaganda book was published, The population bomb, where Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be worldwide famine by the 70's.

Well it didn't happen, and not because of baby killing being legalized... but because Ehrlich was full of crap.

The problem is not enough jobs or food... because the true equation is that more people = more people to farm, produce, work, and buy. Very logical equation really.

The problem the OP may really have is that if there are more people on the planet it becomes more difficult or even impossible for all of them to be controlled... correct?

There are always doom and glummers whose predictions go bust. Mayan Calendar prophets for example. However, populations are growing so rapidly and yes control is a problem. Sooner or later it will destroy society as we know it. We are already seeing over-crowding in many places across the globe.

Take into account the rise of automation and you now need far fewer people to produce a 10-1000 fold greater return. This is income inequality is on the rise.

Jeez I am sounding like a lib.

 

[Freemason9]

The abortion "debate" is a red herring used for political leverage. Nobody on the anti-abortion "pro-life" side ever gives a shit about bombing humans in foreign countries. They're just partisan hacks.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's not about population. It's about woman's rights.

And if Republicans believed in what they say, they would support the baby beyond being born. Not just before birth.

Putting one's responsibility off on someone else ... typical leftist.

 

[GHook93]

The abortion "debate" is a red herring used for political leverage. Nobody on the anti-abortion "pro-life" side ever gives a shit about bombing humans in foreign countries. They're just partisan hacks.

Red Herring. In war bad things happen. If the bad guys would just come out in the open with targets on then there would be no collateral damage, but they don't. Esp Muslims. They hide amongst civilian populations, they fire rocket from school, hospitals and apartment buildings. All the biggest terrorists surround themselves with hordes of children as human shield and purposeful collateral damage.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The abortion "debate" is a red herring used for political leverage. Nobody on the anti-abortion "pro-life" side ever gives a shit about bombing humans in foreign countries. They're just partisan hacks.

They are. As soon as a human being is born they cease to be a concern to these people. 20,000 children die every day around the world, so called 'pro-lifers' ignore them. Bombing another country and children are dying? Ignore them. Israel is shelling Palestinian neighborhoods and hundreds of children are dying on television before their eyes? Ignore them because Israel gets to do anything to anyone. One out of six American children go to bed hungry every night? Ignore them.

This is what you get from people that are fake Christians. They like to call themselves that but they don't live the life or walk the walk at all. Yet they try to claim 'the high ground' when they are standing in the sewer.

It is one of those sociological schisms of the mind. People that claim to be moral because it makes them FEEL GOOD about themselves but who, by their actions and inactions, are not moral at all.

And their favorite argument is 'well what are you doing'. Doesn't matter what anyone else is doing, I don't think Jesus said, 'do good unto others only when you see your neighbor doing good unto others, otherwise do evil'.

 

[GHook93]

The abortion "debate" is a red herring used for political leverage. Nobody on the anti-abortion "pro-life" side ever gives a shit about bombing humans in foreign countries. They're just partisan hacks.

They are. As soon as a human being is born they cease to be a concern to these people. 20,000 children die every day around the world, so called 'pro-lifers' ignore them. Bombing another country and children are dying? Ignore them. Israel is shelling Palestinian neighborhoods and hundreds of children are dying on television before their eyes? Ignore them because Israel gets to do anything to anyone. One out of six American children go to bed hungry every night? Ignore them.

This is what you get from people that are fake Christians. They like to call themselves that but they don't live the life or walk the walk at all. Yet they try to claim 'the high ground' when they are standing in the sewer.

It is one of those sociological schisms of the mind. People that claim to be moral because it makes them FEEL GOOD about themselves but who, by their actions and inactions, are not moral at all.

And their favorite argument is 'well what are you doing'. Doesn't matter what anyone else is doing, I don't think Jesus said, 'do good unto others only when you see your neighbor doing good unto others, otherwise do evil'.

Again red herring and highly ignorant. The anti-semitism card is pulled. Israel is not shelling villages. They are attacking terrorists who purposefully launch missiles and store arms in schools, mosques, apartment buildings and civilian centers. They do more than any other nation on earth to avoid human causalities.

But I do agree there is a level of hypocrisy amongst the prolife crowd that seems to care about the baby until the baby is born.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's not about population. It's about woman's rights.

And if Republicans believed in what they say, they would support the baby beyond being born. Not just before birth.

And they don't. In fact, once your born the GOP gets itchy for the death penalty.

Oh....so according to you the innocent deserve death and the guilty deserve your sympathy?

 

[IsaacNewton]

The abortion "debate" is a red herring used for political leverage. Nobody on the anti-abortion "pro-life" side ever gives a shit about bombing humans in foreign countries. They're just partisan hacks.

They are. As soon as a human being is born they cease to be a concern to these people. 20,000 children die every day around the world, so called 'pro-lifers' ignore them. Bombing another country and children are dying? Ignore them. Israel is shelling Palestinian neighborhoods and hundreds of children are dying on television before their eyes? Ignore them because Israel gets to do anything to anyone. One out of six American children go to bed hungry every night? Ignore them.

This is what you get from people that are fake Christians. They like to call themselves that but they don't live the life or walk the walk at all. Yet they try to claim 'the high ground' when they are standing in the sewer.

It is one of those sociological schisms of the mind. People that claim to be moral because it makes them FEEL GOOD about themselves but who, by their actions and inactions, are not moral at all.

And their favorite argument is 'well what are you doing'. Doesn't matter what anyone else is doing, I don't think Jesus said, 'do good unto others only when you see your neighbor doing good unto others, otherwise do evil'.

Again red herring and highly ignorant. The anti-semitism card is pulled. Israel is not shelling villages. They are attacking terrorists who purposefully launch missiles and store arms in schools, mosques, apartment buildings and civilian centers. They do more than any other nation on earth to avoid human causalities.

But I do agree there is a level of hypocrisy amongst the prolife crowd that seems to care about the baby until the baby is born.

They do not avoid human casualties. They have the right to defend themselves but they are lobbing artillery shells into neighborhoods and the evidence of the loss of innocent life is in full living color on video.

And 'anti-Semitism' came out of your head. Who cares what anyone's religion is.

 

[D Truth]

In 1960's a propaganda book was published, The population bomb, where Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be worldwide famine by the 70's.

Well it didn't happen, and not because of baby killing being legalized... but because Ehrlich was full of crap.

The problem is not enough jobs or food... because the true equation is that more people = more people to farm, produce, work, and buy. Very logical equation really.

The problem the OP may really have is that if there are more people on the planet it becomes more difficult or even impossible for all of them to be controlled... correct?

There are always doom and glummers whose predictions go bust. Mayan Calendar prophets for example. However, populations are growing so rapidly and yes control is a problem. Sooner or later it will destroy society as we know it. We are already seeing over-crowding in many places across the globe.

Take into account the rise of automation and you now need far fewer people to produce a 10-1000 fold greater return. This is income inequality is on the rise.

Jeez I am sounding like a lib.

OK, so you agree that the "overpopulation" propaganda is just that. Good.

So let's get to the root of your problem.
An ever increasing group of people is hard to control, especially by a small group of megalomaniacs who think they are... "special".
Correct?

And to address the attempt to drive the conversation from clean debate....
lib? you appear to be out of touch, it's no secret you sound like a cuck.

 

[GHook93]

In 1960's a propaganda book was published, The population bomb, where Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be worldwide famine by the 70's.

Well it didn't happen, and not because of baby killing being legalized... but because Ehrlich was full of crap.

The problem is not enough jobs or food... because the true equation is that more people = more people to farm, produce, work, and buy. Very logical equation really.

The problem the OP may really have is that if there are more people on the planet it becomes more difficult or even impossible for all of them to be controlled... correct?

There are always doom and glummers whose predictions go bust. Mayan Calendar prophets for example. However, populations are growing so rapidly and yes control is a problem. Sooner or later it will destroy society as we know it. We are already seeing over-crowding in many places across the globe.

Take into account the rise of automation and you now need far fewer people to produce a 10-1000 fold greater return. This is income inequality is on the rise.

Jeez I am sounding like a lib.

OK, so you agree that the "overpopulation" propaganda is just that. Good.

So let's get to the root of your problem.
An ever increasing group of people is hard to control, especially by a small group of megalomaniacs who think they are... "special".
Correct?

And to address the attempt to drive the conversation from clean debate....
lib? you appear to be out of touch, it's no secret you sound like a cuck.

No I admit that many times the end of times get blown out of proportion.

But I fully believe over-population is not one of them.

See how populations are exploding:
AD/POPULATION
1 / 170 mil
1000 / 254 mil (in 1000 years it hadn't doubled)
1500 / 425 mil
1800 / 1 bil (it took 1800 yrs to get to the first bil)
1927 / 2bil (in just 127 years to get to the second bil$
1960 / 3bil (it only took 33 years to add another bil)
1974 / 4 bil (it took only 14 yrs)
1987 / 5 bil (only 13 yrs)
1999 / 6 bil (only 12 years)
2011 / 7 bil (12 yr again)

So it's taking just over a decade to add another billion people? When it took 1800 to get to the first one. Take the same trends and we will add another 3 bill by 2050. By 2100, which God will my kids should see, we see double the population to 14 bil! This is granted that it takes 12 yrs for to add another bil.

Sorry buddy but the world is starting to see the effects and it will only get worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IsaacNewton]

In 1960's a propaganda book was published, The population bomb, where Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be worldwide famine by the 70's.

Well it didn't happen, and not because of baby killing being legalized... but because Ehrlich was full of crap.

The problem is not enough jobs or food... because the true equation is that more people = more people to farm, produce, work, and buy. Very logical equation really.

The problem the OP may really have is that if there are more people on the planet it becomes more difficult or even impossible for all of them to be controlled... correct?

There are always doom and glummers whose predictions go bust. Mayan Calendar prophets for example. However, populations are growing so rapidly and yes control is a problem. Sooner or later it will destroy society as we know it. We are already seeing over-crowding in many places across the globe.

Take into account the rise of automation and you now need far fewer people to produce a 10-1000 fold greater return. This is income inequality is on the rise.

Jeez I am sounding like a lib.

OK, so you agree that the "overpopulation" propaganda is just that. Good.

So let's get to the root of your problem.
An ever increasing group of people is hard to control, especially by a small group of megalomaniacs who think they are... "special".
Correct?

And to address the attempt to drive the conversation from clean debate....
lib? you appear to be out of touch, it's no secret you sound like a cuck.

No I admit that many times the end of times get blown out of proportion.

But I fully believe over-population is not one of them.

See how populations are exploding:
AD/POPULATION
1 / 170 mil
1000 / 254 mil (in 1000 years it hadn't doubled)
1500 / 425 mil
1800 / 1 bil (it took 1800 yrs to get to the first bil)
1927 / 2bil (in just 127 years to get to the second bil$
1960 / 3bil (it only took 33 years to add another bil)
1974 / 4 bil (it took only 14 yrs)
1987 / 5 bil (only 13 yrs)
1999 / 6 bil (only 12 years)
2011 / 7 bil (12 yr again)

So it's taking just over a decade to add another billion people? When it took 1800 to get to the first one. Take the same trends and we will add another 3 bill by 2050. By 2100, which God will my kids should see, we see double the population to 14 bil! This is granted that it takes 12 yrs for to add another bil.

Sorry buddy but the world is starting to see the effects and it will only get worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Water shortage is really starting to show itself already. That will likely be the limiting factor in the near future.

Global Warming is going to trigger THE change in human existence. There have been 5 major mass extinctions in the history of life on Earth, we are now well into the beginning of the 6th.

Add to this that coal reserves are projected to last another 100 years, and oil reserves maybe 50. Once they are gone that's it. They are gone forever until the end of time. Of course Global Warming will necessitate the stopping of burning fossil fuels. The era of the internal combustion engine is going to be one of the shortest blips in human history for a technology.

There are huge changes in human existence coming in the next 20-30 years, and they will be permanent. Population control will become the norm, there is no alternative.

 

[D Truth]

In 1960's a propaganda book was published, The population bomb, where Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be worldwide famine by the 70's.

Well it didn't happen, and not because of baby killing being legalized... but because Ehrlich was full of crap.

The problem is not enough jobs or food... because the true equation is that more people = more people to farm, produce, work, and buy. Very logical equation really.

The problem the OP may really have is that if there are more people on the planet it becomes more difficult or even impossible for all of them to be controlled... correct?

There are always doom and glummers whose predictions go bust. Mayan Calendar prophets for example. However, populations are growing so rapidly and yes control is a problem. Sooner or later it will destroy society as we know it. We are already seeing over-crowding in many places across the globe.

Take into account the rise of automation and you now need far fewer people to produce a 10-1000 fold greater return. This is income inequality is on the rise.

Jeez I am sounding like a lib.

OK, so you agree that the "overpopulation" propaganda is just that. Good.

So let's get to the root of your problem.
An ever increasing group of people is hard to control, especially by a small group of megalomaniacs who think they are... "special".
Correct?

And to address the attempt to drive the conversation from clean debate....
lib? you appear to be out of touch, it's no secret you sound like a cuck.

No I admit that many times the end of times get blown out of proportion.

But I fully believe over-population is not one of them.

See how populations are exploding:
AD/POPULATION
1 / 170 mil
1000 / 254 mil (in 1000 years it hadn't doubled)
1500 / 425 mil
1800 / 1 bil (it took 1800 yrs to get to the first bil)
1927 / 2bil (in just 127 years to get to the second bil$
1960 / 3bil (it only took 33 years to add another bil)
1974 / 4 bil (it took only 14 yrs)
1987 / 5 bil (only 13 yrs)
1999 / 6 bil (only 12 years)
2011 / 7 bil (12 yr again)

So it's taking just over a decade to add another billion people? When it took 1800 to get to the first one. Take the same trends and we will add another 3 bill by 2050. By 2100, which God will my kids should see, we see double the population to 14 bil! This is granted that it takes 12 yrs for to add another bil.

Sorry buddy but the world is starting to see the effects and it will only get worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously? How accurate do you really think those numbers really are?
I mean... you acknowledge Ehrlich's/planned parenthood's propaganda was a load of manure... yet you still default to their principles?
Sorry friend, that is a very cuck'd way to argue.

Also, why are you dodging the question as to your root concern?
Are you afraid that there is a limit to how many people are able to be controlled? Gotta keep the herd small right?

 

[GHook93]

In 1960's a propaganda book was published, The population bomb, where Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be worldwide famine by the 70's.

Well it didn't happen, and not because of baby killing being legalized... but because Ehrlich was full of crap.

The problem is not enough jobs or food... because the true equation is that more people = more people to farm, produce, work, and buy. Very logical equation really.

The problem the OP may really have is that if there are more people on the planet it becomes more difficult or even impossible for all of them to be controlled... correct?

There are always doom and glummers whose predictions go bust. Mayan Calendar prophets for example. However, populations are growing so rapidly and yes control is a problem. Sooner or later it will destroy society as we know it. We are already seeing over-crowding in many places across the globe.

Take into account the rise of automation and you now need far fewer people to produce a 10-1000 fold greater return. This is income inequality is on the rise.

Jeez I am sounding like a lib.

OK, so you agree that the "overpopulation" propaganda is just that. Good.

So let's get to the root of your problem.
An ever increasing group of people is hard to control, especially by a small group of megalomaniacs who think they are... "special".
Correct?

And to address the attempt to drive the conversation from clean debate....
lib? you appear to be out of touch, it's no secret you sound like a cuck.

No I admit that many times the end of times get blown out of proportion.

But I fully believe over-population is not one of them.

See how populations are exploding:
AD/POPULATION
1 / 170 mil
1000 / 254 mil (in 1000 years it hadn't doubled)
1500 / 425 mil
1800 / 1 bil (it took 1800 yrs to get to the first bil)
1927 / 2bil (in just 127 years to get to the second bil$
1960 / 3bil (it only took 33 years to add another bil)
1974 / 4 bil (it took only 14 yrs)
1987 / 5 bil (only 13 yrs)
1999 / 6 bil (only 12 years)
2011 / 7 bil (12 yr again)

So it's taking just over a decade to add another billion people? When it took 1800 to get to the first one. Take the same trends and we will add another 3 bill by 2050. By 2100, which God will my kids should see, we see double the population to 14 bil! This is granted that it takes 12 yrs for to add another bil.

Sorry buddy but the world is starting to see the effects and it will only get worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Water shortage is really starting to show itself already. That will likely be the limiting factor in the near future.

Global Warming is going to trigger THE change in human existence. There have been 5 major mass extinctions in the history of life on Earth, we are now well into the beginning of the 6th.

Add to this that coal reserves are projected to last another 100 years, and oil reserves maybe 50. Once they are gone that's it. They are gone forever until the end of time. Of course Global Warming will necessitate the stopping of burning fossil fuels. The era of the internal combustion engine is going to be one of the shortest blips in human history for a technology.

There are huge changes in human existence coming in the next 20-30 years, and they will be permanent. Population control will become the norm, there is no alternative.

I don't think water will be an issue. Yes ground water is being depleted, but the Jews in Israel you hate so hate much are developing desalination methods. Thank the Jews when you have drinking water in 25 yrs.

Global warming is over-hyped. Even if it is true it won't lead to a mass extinction.

Fossil fuels will dry up, but I remember my science teach in '92 making a convincing argument that peak oil will happen in '02. Yet it is 2015 and we have more oil than ever. Coal is being used less now that natural gas is booming. We will have sufficient fossil fuels for a while. Yet I agree develop alternatives now before we need them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gipper]

I know the arguments abortion is the killing for a baby and I completely agree with that statement. At certain point very early in the process that proof that the fetus is a person is undeniable. I accept that. However, do the pro-life crowd care that the population of the world will become a big problem over the century? Take US. I think the estimates below are low. Nevertheless, 600 million people will make the dystopian future of Soylent Green will be a reality. NYC, LA and Chicago will have 30-40 mil inhabitants. Where will all the job be. Automation in the agriculture industry has severely limited employment in that industry and will continue to do so. Same with the manufacturing and assembly industries. In fact over the next century automation will continue to reduce employment in all fields white and blue. Yet the population has exploded. But I digress.

Do the prolife crowd worry about over-population?

The Socioeconomic Costs of Roe v. Wade - Ethics Public Policy Center

So the concern about over population justifies the wanton slaughter of the unborn. Is this what you are trying to proclaim?

Over population is a minor concern. Some of the most densely populated areas are also very nice places to live. See Hong Kong or Singapore.

Technology will solve our problems, however big government stands in the way.

 

[quorthon]

The nation of undesired children isn't good too I think.

 

[mamooth]

Romania implemented the policies that pro-lifers want here. The result was that the state orphanages were overflowing.

That's not an argument for abortion in general. It's a refutation the "but there's a waiting list for adoptions!" pro-life argument. There's a waiting list _now_. Ban abortion, that waiting list would be very quickly filled, and from then on, it would be excess babies getting dumped on the state.