Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_china_for … Nld29tYW4-
This is just the latest example of someone in CHINA being "forced to" do something. Although this isn't surprising anymore, it is very disturbing and we should strongly condemn the people who did this.
It's terrible, but someone like Chinaman/Alternate Poet has said on a previous post that it is a policy that America should put in place.
China man said that a one child policy would benefit most nations in keeping the rapidly expanding world population under control.
Chinese laws prohibit such events as are reported in the Yahoo news - it also forbids abortion past the same time considerations as in most western countries. These things, along with abandoned babies, were not uncommon at the start of the policy but are currently very rare. Rural communities often are ignorant, including the local officials, with many illiterate people among the older generations (over 40 or so).
The one child policy has actually resulted in an average of around 1.8 children per couple - Ethnic minority Chinese are allowed two, in some districts a second child is allowed if the first is a girl, if you have money you can just pay the fine and have as many as you can afford. My friend has a sister who is registered as being her childless aunt's daughter.
These things happen but most stories such as this one are fabrications and direct lies produced by christian groups interfering in Chinese affairs. If they used truth, justice and decency they would not be restricted - but they choose lies and deceipt, which should not be any surprise for the behaviour of this dying, slightly ridiculous, ideology.
Still shilling for the communists huh? This came from the Associated Press, as you can see if you bothered to check the link. They corroborated it and it's true not a fabrication as you claim
Regarding your earlier post this is what you said.
"I have no problem living in a country where a foetus is a foetus and treated as such - I have no problem with abortion.
I am also happy to support the one child policy here - that you know absolutely nothing about apparently - I would recommend it for other countries also - especially America."
So I'm not far off, you don't have a problem with what happened to this woman. Why am I not surprised.
OHHHHHHHHHHHH !! THAT is who you are
As you can find throughout these pages I do not shill for Communism, and I am equally critical of Capitalism.
I am only living here among all my Chinese friends of all classes - I guess you would know more about China cos you got Youtube
I have no problem with abortion, why should I have any problem iwth a perfectly legal procedure that is 'normal' in the eyes of everyone except a minority group of lying, pathetic loud mouths with no concience or care for women.
I don't have such a problem with this woman becasue the story is unlikely to be true as written - not impossible, but unlikely.
And one child policy for America - good idea I would say.
That's right what happened to that woman didn't happen and if it did her abortion was a perfectly legal procedure and normal except to loudmouths who don't care about women. Care to look at the mirror?
"And one child policy for America - good idea I would say."
That makes absolutely no sense. Population growth is a non-issue globally, especially in the developed world.
Here's a comment I made on another forum a while back.
written by Ralph Deeds, January 15, 2010
There's an interesting article in the January-February Atlantic by James Fallows who recently spent a couple of years in China. He is optimistic about the future of the U.S. vis-a-vis China for several reasons. He said he met a lot of expatriates from the United States and Europe in China, but almost none who planned to immigrate and stay permanently there. Almost all were there temporarily for specific business or other purposes. In contrast, Fallows pointed to the fact that one-quarter of the members of the National Academy of Sciences were born abroad, an indication that America, much more than China and most other countries, still attracts many of the best and the brightest immigrants from around the world. Here's a link to the article http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/american-dec Unfortunately, to access it I think you have to be an Atlantic subscriber.
I have a "friend" who thinks that disabled people, and elderly, etc should be killed - like a Nazi.
Population of china is :1,324,655,000+(as per 2008) growing. Unless government stops people from multiplying there is no way country can manage resources for their countrymen. Why blame government if people don't stop after 8, 10 or 12th child ? and still expect medical/educational allowance from govt ? I think after 2nd child if there is any extra child then there should be 10% additional tax on couple.
There are ways that the government can discourage people from having more than one child, as you have suggested. What people object to is the way this woman was hauled out of her house kicking and screaming and then against her will, injected with something to kill her baby. That does not disturb you?
That does disturbs me.
But i have to see the two sides of the coin. I know the effects of overpopulation and how it'll affect that country. These kids if not raised well are likely to get into crime world and we can't do anything after that. Poverty, crime and many other problems can't be solved if the population is not under control of government. So there is no point in blaming the government if citizens are going berserk in all worst cases. Overpopulation can also lead to anarchy in that country which i guess these people can't afford getting into so they're being strict like this.
I don't see any reason to excuse this inhuman treatment. That family only had the one child already, this would have been their second. I can also easily argue that if the child was raised right, might have found the cure for cancer or some other noble accomplishment.
Well, you see, that is one of the problems of having a medical/educational allowance from the government in the first place. When people are responsible for their own children, they make wise choices about when to stop having children, and it's nobody else's business how many they choose to have.
If only that was true! In the good old days poor people had more kids than they could afford - I am one of 8 and my old man was a gardener on a breath more than nothing. Common situation back then.
Was contraception readily available and not against your parents' religion?
That is nothing to do with it - the issue is that being poor increases family size - well known fact.
How does being poor automatically increase family size?
Contrariwise, I would think that having a larger number of dependent children than one can easily support would tend to lead to poverty.
Does this just magically happen or is there a mechanism at work?
In hunter gatherer societies, birthrate is closely tied to food supply, because when women are too thin, they don't ovulate.
In a rural agricultural community, needing children to help on the farm is a factor. In this case, having children makes economic sense, but when they grow up, they may not have anywhere to go, because you run out of farmland.
In urban areas, if there is no welfare, then there is a disincentive to having children, because they are not helpful economically.
These are the kinds of factors I am asking about.
You are right about all of these categories I believe. I would expect the mechanism to be about our primary hard drive - to replace ourselves, to which eating comes second. In simple societies where kids die easy families have more kids - in more complex (or more screwed up) societies this is interfered with by the threat of losing kids coupled with a higher survival rate. Like at the point in the Industrial Revolution when the rich realised they were going to run out of workers and so made medicine more available, affordable, which spawned the current industry.
Uhhh, at 8 mos. that's a baby, and at that point, totally capable, under normal circumstances, of surviving outside the womb. Take this story w/ a grain of salt.
That baby is already viable if it is born even if it is not in full term yet. That is blatantly killing!
I thought that they are relaxing their 1 child policy, one thing to consider is that since Chinese people are generally son preference society, the result of ultrasound counts a lot if the baby is going to be aborted or not.
First I agree that this is a horrifying experience from our perspective.
That said, every other species in the world is kept under population control measures when called for.
Humans aren't like "every other species".....just so ya know.
When it comes to resources on this planet and population explosion, humans are just another species.
To whom are we just another species? Humans have the ability to reason and think, like how to replant and restore some of our natural resources, and other myriad ways that show our distinction from the animal species.
When it comes to perishable energy sources, nature and plenty of other things humans can't restore it at all(take example of oil, natural gas etc). Logic and reason of human is yet to reach level where it can bring back everything that this planet lost because of species called humans. Unlike many other species we don't perform our duties to keep this planet clean and so..making distinction is not going to help this planet.
I don't understand why people worry about this.
By the time there's no planet left, there will be no people left either. God's got His plan, and no amount of loving the mythical "Mother Earth" will stop His plan. God created this planet, and in due time it will "melt with fervent heat", according to His word.
Um... the earth is actually pretty damned real. Nothing mythical about the earth being our ultimate nourisher.
That whole god thing, on the other hand...
Still, whatever, either way, I would still like to know what makes human life so much more valued in the eyes of folks like you than the lives of all the other species.
Well if that's the case, what are you doing in front of a computer? Shouldn't you be out in the jungle, giving the animals an equal chance to hunt you down for food? There would then be more oxygen for them and you'd be emitting less carbon dioxide.
Is that your idea of an answer to my question? Or in any way a relevent contribution to the topic?
My time is valuable. Feel free to let me know when you got something to say worth addressing.
Yes. Why shouldn't it be relevant? If you don't value your own life above animals and lack any self-preservation instincts and put yourself on the same level of animals, then why not live like the animals?
Every animal values its own life above all strangers' lives, even cows and pigs and chickens. Every animal has the survival instinct. You are twisting pathetically.
I do live like an animal. I breathe in air, require food and water, screw like a bitch in heat, get dirty, clean myself, watch out for my young, am wary of predators, and spend the bulk of my time pursuing survival, with periods of play and rest in between.
I guess you think you're above all that?
No you don't live like an animal, you live in a house and you're in front of a computer. You eat from plates don't you? Or do you put your food on the ground and eat from the floor? By being part of civilization you put yourself above the animal. So I'm calling you out, if you really don't see any difference between you and the animals, why are you in front of a computer?
And if as you say that every animal values its own life then every animal knows the answer to your question "I would still like to know what makes human life so much more valued in the eyes of folks like you than the lives of all the other species" and you don't.
Every species has its own quirks. Some animals eat with their hands and build themselves domiciles and some don't.
Well I think you're purposely misunderstanding. Naturally we all value our own lives over that of other animals, other than our own beloveds perhaps, just as many other animals do.
The question isn't what makes us different than other animals, or whose lives are most valued by us as individuals, so it seems to me like you're just trying to muddy the waters.
The question is what makes us think it is 'wrong' for some women to choose to abort their 1st trimester babies, but the wholesale slaughter of animals is 'right'.
I'm not objecting to personal differences, choices and preferences, I am questioning the justness of the assertion that abortion is a 'WRONG'.
If the objection is that it is a taking of a life, and we further break it down to that it is a taking of a human life, then I am still left wondering what the moral difference is.
That's all I am asking. Everything else you say and bring up is irrelevent because it's besides the point and doesn't address the moral question.
That wasn't the question at all. You said, "I would still like to know what makes human life so much more valued in the eyes of folks like you than the lives of all the other species" that is different from "The question is what makes us think it is 'wrong' for some women to choose to abort their 1st trimester babies, but the wholesale slaughter of animals is 'right'." Then you combined the new question with the morality of abortion.
I think you're confused and included all these issues that wasn't there to begin with. In fact this whole thing drifted from the original topic about an unfortunate woman and the forced abortion by the government. If you think that is okay as a method of population control then I'm appalled. If you are questioning that there are people who think forced abortion by the government is wrong, I'm doubly appalled. That you somehow equalize the choice to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester to the wholesale slaughter of animals is really bizarre to me.
Hah, you got me. Reminds me of something. Several months ago my eldest daughter reading one of my posts here over my shoulder as I wrote it asked me why I talked so funny in the forum post. I explained to her that in these forums one has to be very exact in order to avoid having people easily twist up your meanings and words.
Apparently my long absence has allowed me to grow rusty.
Fine, I am now changing my question.
Why is one morally wrong in the eyes of folks like you and the other not?
You're also right that it is somewhat off-topic, but it was brought up by somebody's comment and that's where the tangent went. You don't have to follow, but if you do it would only make sense to address it rather than keep trying to twist it up.
To be painfully and obsessively clear, why is it morally wrong in your eyes for a 1st trimester abortion of a human fetus based on the pregnant woman's personal choices (and not government enforcement) but at the same time the wholesale slaughter of animals based on our personal preferences is morally okay?
That is what I am trying to discover here, since seeing two people claim such (or implicate as much to again be painfully clear) in two separate forum threads.
You're asking why it's wrong to have an abortion but it's okay to slaughter animals? (Brevity can be a blessing.) Really? It remains a bizarre connection to me. I value human life over animal life.
That is not the question. The question is why do you see one as a moral wrong and not the other? Why is it morally okay to abort chickens but not human fetuses? Both are based on our personal preferences for our continued survival.
Telling me you find the question bizarre is bizarre to me. There must be some moral distinction to justify why one is 'WRONG' and the other not.
If you ask that question then you don't value human life over animal life, it's all the same to you. That's where the moral distinction comes from.
Then there is no moral distinction I guess, unless someone can provide one (which you certainly have not) and it's all just a matter of human preference.
If it's all just a matter of human preference, then let it be so.
Until such time that as a matter of survival we must act as a society to control the careless actions of those who breed like bunnies in order to protect the survival of the species.
Well you have a daughter. Do you have a beloved pet? If you had to save your daughter or your beloved pet, which one would you save?
Are you saying that our society should decide who gets to have children and how many? If so, shouldn't some governing body have given their approval for you to have a child instead of "carelessly breeding like a bunny"?
Your first two questions are stupid and irrelevent IMHO and so I won't address them.
As to your third question, who? no I wouldn't think so, although there may be some instances. Honestly not a topic I've given a lot of thought to, and is not something I've been discussing for the most part as you yourself pointed out.
How many may become necessary. Maybe is necessary even at this time. I would hesitate to voice an opinion on such a serious topic without crunching alot of numbers I probably don't even have access to.
But I do think it is very clear that at this time in history humans have a decimating effect on the environment. Unless we can quite severely change the way we live, we will have to at some point implement some population control measures. Since there is always a large segment of society which refuses to educate themselves or be reasonable about things, it will probably require government enforcement.
I'd rather see us explore other options such as viable alternative planets, viable lifestyle alternatives and a massive education campaign which would encourage rather than enforce.
Your fourth question is again not one I'm going to waste my time addressing.
Any progress yet on working out that moral distinction?
Don't worry about the first two questions since you already answered it when you answered Habee. I had no idea that you were so curious about anyone's moral distinctions, but given your philosophy I wonder why you'd bother asking in the first place.
Habee asked based on a much earlier post, so I figured when she asked she hadn't yet read through the rest of our exchange, which I think may have better clarified what I was trying to say. Plus I just like Habee.
You however I feel are just trying to be difficult. What is it about my 'philosophy' which you feel indicates a lack of concern for moral distinctions?
Rather, I feel, I have quite over-stressed my concern for the moral distinction, since you proved so thick-headed about it, purposely or otherwise. While the matter for some appears to be based on personal preferences which they try to impose on people at large as a moral 'RIGHT' or 'WRONG', I have tried to ferret out the true morality of it.
Which you have called bizarre.
Whenever you're ready to explain to me why it is a moral 'WRONG' to abort a 1st trimester fetus, but morally 'RIGHT' to do so if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, and morally 'RIGHT' to slaughter animals en masse, I'll be glad to know.
Yes, I've now added to the moral dilemna. I'm greatly concerned with moral distinctions.
Well don't get your panties in a twist. I'm just trying to find out what your philosophy is. I already said that I value human life over animal life and I would make my decision from there. You didn't accept it as an answer and it was fine by me. We don't have to have the same morals and we don't.
Then you see nothing morally wrong with first trimester abortions, and acknowledge that it's a matter of personal preference?
That's fantastic. I have no idea why you didn't simply say so much earlier.
You may not have said it so clearly, but your utter failure to define the moral distinctions or even begin to attempt to has indicated as much.
I am certain that if you knew what the morality behind it was you would be good enough to share it with us. You have not done so, so clearly you must realize that there is nothing there beyond personal preferences.
Knowing such I have to think it's only reasonable that you'll respect the preferences of others.
I already said it was fine that we don't have the same morals.
Yes, but what you call morals are really just preferences. Morals have reason behind them. If we were discussing morals you'd be able to show me the reasoning.
But you can't, or haven't yet, so clearly it's just preferences.
Definition of Morals: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.
Morals are not preferences. It is about rules of right conduct. It's not necessarily about reason.
Rules of conduct are based on reasoning or else they're just preferences which may be over-ruled by the preferences of another.
Where no sound reasoning exists, to each his own.
See I just knew we would come to a point of agreement.
Not necessarily. I said that I valued human life over all other animal life. That is a rule of right conduct for me, that's not reason or a preference.
Okay, that's it for me.
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. Most humans would save another human over a dog or other critter because we're human, while a wolf would save a wolf cub before saving a human. I suppose every species is more protective of its own members.
You are wasting your valuable time that could be spent more productively cleaning your glasses or something. This troll will just follow you posting 'what you said', but turned inside out every time. It is like arguing with a crossword compiler with Touret's
Oh goody another troll slayer.
Whats up Alternate poet or whoever you will be next.
Its like a costume party in here most of the time.
Could you believe he thought I was TKsensei? I only have one avatar on the forums, unlike him.
I had forgotten about TKsensei, I have been accused of being him myself.
All of these people who accuse others of being sock puppets or trolls only do so to hide the fact that is what they are.
Kind of makes you think they are all the same person.
And you are the other one of the pair I would guess !! No surprise there then
Those voices in your head tell you about TK/SadOh being spotted over here so quick
So you don't think human life is more valuable than the lives of other species? If you had to choose between saving your own personal pet or a niece or nephew, you'd save your pet? I'm just trying to understand your philosophy.
Hi Habee. Have been sending good thoughts you and your husband's way. COPD is a tough thing to deal with. Wishing you guys the best there.
Innately more valuable, no, I don't set humans above the rest. Actually pretty undecided if in fact we might not be the worst of the bunch.
However, yes, of course I value human lives over the lives of other animals, but I also acknowledge that that is just my personal preference as a human myself.
I see nothing, however, that makes the lives of humans innately more important than the lives of animals, other than that fact of our own personal preference.
No of course I would save my niece, nepphew or other loved one before attempting to save even a favorite pet, but to be honest I'd be hard-pressed to do the same for a stranger, I'd guess, unless it was like a helpless child or something.
oh please not that god and mother earth crap again. I don't want this planet run out of fuel because NASCAR/F1 wasting it just because some people think jesus going to reincarnate and act as plumber to pump up some fuel out of mother earth. Let's get real. You have no idea how the fuel on this planet formed and how important it is.
Humans also use far more resources and destroy far more resources than all other species of earth combined.
Why not? Second time today in these forums I have been told that. Totally confused.
What is it about humans that make their lives so much more valuable than the lives of animals?
I don't understand China. I have a friend who has adopted two kids from Asia - one from China and one from Cambodia. She keeps up with Chinese adoptions and said the nation has all but completely closed down out-of-country adoptions. Why? If they have more kids than they can feed, why not let them go to other countries with foreign parents who can care for them?
No - they don't have more kids than they can feed - the internal rate of adoption has reached the number of kids available.
There is also the issue of the country now being finacially able to deal with these things, I guess it won't be too long before rich Chinese couples are adopting unwanted trailer trash babies if they are blond and blue eyed ?
Development means exactly that - China is developing in many more ways than just toward becoming the number one economy in the world. Orphans and adoption is old news now, as I comment above - the next issues to deal with are the disabled kids, both physically and mentally - and attitudes to this are changing as fast as the economy.
Then that's great news! Glad to hear it! Plus, I have no problem with unwanted American kids going to foreign parents who can take care of them. Parental love is blind to color and ethnicity, in my opinion.
You are right of course, one of the Asian child adoption issues is the cute kids getting 'taken', this has obvious issues - if as many people adopted ugly kids from other less well developed countries . . .
When my friend adopted a baby girl from China, she didn't get to choose. Madison has grown up into a beautiful, sweet, very intelligent girl, however. My pal was telling me about one nation that does foreign adoptions - maybe Ukraine? - where two kids are brought out to prospective parents and they pick the one they want. Ugh. I don't think I could choose - I'd end up taking both!
They're all cute! There isn't a baby born who isn't cute.
Keep having more children, have as many as you can. There are plenty of resources in the world. Adopt a Chinese baby, you can afford it. I'm the soul provider for a family of six. It doesn't take as much money to raise a child as they are letting on. Make a little sacrifice, trade in some of your extra comforts to prepetuate the Human race. It's not a bad thing, socioty just wants you to think it is because on the whole they are greedy. Abortion is not worth it, the adoption process is what's screwed up, not the ammount of people in the system. There are many couples who wish to adopt a baby but can't because of the screwed up system. Do not give in to the notion that you need more toys for yourself, your toys will loose their sparkle, they will rust or be eaten by moths. Nothing is more precious than a family.
Don't step into a puddle of waddle.
It's too bad we can't post at the same time and really confuse him.
Gotta turn in myself. See you later Jim.
It's just as tyrannical to force a woman to carry a baby to term.
Ever given birth?
Been through labor?
Ever thought about giving a baby away??
Get off your high horses...you anti-abortionists are just the same.
You want to force your will on me, and take away my freedom.
On something that is none of your business.
It's the other side of the same coin.
I strongly support one child policy and would like to see that getting implemented in my country. What so ever religion says , it doesnot come to feed people at end of the day...
Having said that I dont approve the way this case was handled. This is not right way to implement policy...
I would just remind people that this is still not any kind of proven case, it is an allegation and the truth may well turn out to be a different issue.
They said in the news that this is going to be relaxed in some places in China next year and Beijing will follow suit 2012..If that is the case it is a good news. Having taught demography - population studies, I think that due to the 1 child policy -- the net reproductive rate ( the rate that a population will replenish itself due to the birth of a girl who will replace her mom to reproduce) is imbalance after three decades of implementing it, more males are born. This will cause a difference later on in terms of the need for added "labor force" as the people will start to age and the labor force (15-64 years old) is depleted in the long run. This is also the reason why they are relaxing the policy.
The imbalance is now - school numbers have already peaked and are set to decline now - it is becoming a concern for the thousands and thousands of Universities for the next decade.
So it is a smart move for China to relax the policy, thanks for that information Chinaman...I say that not only China has son preference almost all countries in the world has son preference too. IMHO, the shift in the sex ratio at birth (more males are born against female because they tend to abort it if they found out that it is a female first born) will affect age old care and labor shifts in the long run. And added to that the problem of aging population is almost the same as the problem in increased fertility rate. I don't know which one is more difficult to take care, aging pop or babies in terms of health care -- money needed for the age old care or the schooling needs of a younger population.
Shifts in birth rate for example like in some European countries (negative birh rates like in France) put a lot of problems on social security, home for the aged, rise in pension, old age care, retirement age and labor force supply etc..
When my pal went to Cambodia to adopt, there were way more boys than girls available. She was told that Camobodians prefer girls because it's the girls who take care of the parents when they get old. Anyone know if this is true? Is there another reason why there are/were so many more boys up for adoption in Cambodia?
Hi habee, Cambodias Total fertility Rate (TFR) is still high comparing to other Southeast Asian countries. So if they can spare one male child, their family is till relatively big. In particular the war in Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) affected the population socially, life is hard. And it is true in some underdeveloped countries female born are seen as an investment for parents i.e, old age support
Unlike what they have in China is that when confronted with the option of an only child, they will choose a son over a daughter.
I'm just now catching up to speed with this thread, and I have a lot of questions. First:
I really struggle with Anesidora's constant or frequent references to a first trimester abortion, when the news story was about a late third trimester forced abortion. Is the 1st trimester reference related to a different thread (therefore off-topic)?
Government enforcement is one thing, but murdering a viable third trimester fetus is an entirely different subject!
I will accept CM's assertions that the actual story may be different from the way it was reported in the news. At this point, I/we are commenting on what we have heard from the AP story. Until we hear reliable reports to the contrary, that is what we are commenting on.
Ignorant indeed, if it took them eight months to notice the woman's pregnancy and to "enforce" the government policy.
Having given birth to four (NB, lovemychris), I am aware that a first pregnancy is easier to hide than later ones, and a second one (in this reported case) is probably easier to hide than subsequent ones. But eight months really is extreme.
Tell that to the people that my church gave money for food last week; tell that to the people who regularly eat at another church's community-wide soup kitchen type meals; tell that to the ones who get free food from yet another church's food pantry on a regular basis. I can't begin to tell you of all the people that I know of who have been fed by the religious groups that I know of personally. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
It is good here to see a comment from the demographic perspective.
One concern I have about highly male populations comes from the fact that I have read that the Taliban originally grew up in areas where there was a high percentage of orphaned men - few or no women, lots of men.
Then, too, there have been studies of brain development that show that in the late teens a man's brain is undergoing some changes that make him highly unstable. That is the age when young men drivers have many automobile accidents and it is also the age (continuing into/through the twenties) when there is more criminal behavior among men.
Since the things I have heard/read have been in the popular press, I would be interested in hearing from people who have participated in more scholarly study of demography about the relation between gender-concentration and social (or anti-social) behavior.
PS - Thanks, Habee! ... I've been thinking about y'all, and hoping there have been some improvements.
The predisposition to risky behaviors (teens) and aggressiveness are a factor of socio-cultural and psychological factors. Plus you need to factor in the genetic make up of the individual.
Up to what percent does each factor affect the individual is a gray area, nor there is a debate whether we can really approximate to raise a criminal.
Societal factors like religion or no religion, economic status, family (upbringing, values) and the expectation of the society (men are more aggressive) are very important in the determination of human behavior.
Not really a nice thing to force someone to do, but maybe if they tried nagging for 7 months first and she didn't get the hint. (could she have moved?)
China is a non-tolerant country. Aborting a child (don't bring religion) is itself wrong. No one has the right to take away a life. Aborting a 8 month foetus puts the life of the mother under severe threat. What about the psychological aspect. China can work only as a bully. They cannot accept the other side's viewpoint.
Hope the mother recovers. May the soul of the unborn baby rest in peace.
by Ray Choiniere aka Cagsil4 years ago
Hey Hubbers,It's irony that I post this because of the many threads talking about how the world would be without "religious" folk of all different types/forms of religion.So, would the world be better if...
by Jerad Maplethorpe6 years ago
I want to hear which issue(s) you are most concerned about in the world today.Do you have any radical ideas that have the potential to bring awareness or change to the issue?Would you be willing to write an article...
by qwark3 years ago
What will the method be that is used to necessarily "reduce/cull" the human population to a level Mother "Gaia" can, comfortably and successfully, nurture it ?
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
overpopulation of this planet? As we all know, the earth's space and resources are finite. Mathematical logic dictates that with more people, more resources are going to be used and resources are...
by Amie Warren6 years ago
I don't have a religion, but I am a pantheist. The reason I chose pantheism is because it isn't a religion, although you can make it one if you wish. Pantheists can even be Christian. I look around me and see nature as...
by kirstenblog6 years ago
I have heard many good arguments about overpopulation putting a huge burden on resources, from China to India overpopulation has been a issue that needs dealing with. So what is the argument that this is not a problem...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.