Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>This culture has declared man, in our present state, to be the last rung on the evolutionary ladder. That man is under no obligation to live by the laws of evolution under which every other species on earth is obliged to live.
We are woefully wrong about both.
JMO

What laws of evolytion do we not live by?

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I already said, upheld for now. We are slowly moving away from that position.

And you'd still be wrong. The numbers are what they've been for a long time. Holding steady. The polls don't ask, "upheld for now". They ask about "upheld", or "overturned".

And you are still missing the point, that some of those who want it upheld are some of those who consider themselves pro-life, and so that designation is pretty useless in determining who wants what.

You're the one who brought up percentage points, and now you want to ignore them. Why is that?

evolution

Roe and Wade called, they said this thread is done. move on.

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
What laws of evolution do we not live by?

The law of limited competition. Such that:
1) You may compete to the full extent of your abilities,
2) but you may not hunt down your competitors and destroy their food, or
3) deny them access to food.

Because 6 million of us are pursuing an unstable evolutionary strategy, we are fundamentally attacking the very ecological systems which keep us alive.

And the Law of Abundance and Decline, such that for every other species on Earth:
1) An increase in food availability = growth, and
2) A decrease in food availability = decline

We continue to produce an abundance of food, which in turn, continues to produce an increase in population, and we do not allow the production of food to decline, so that our numbers may do so.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
No, nearly two-thirds of the population want RvW to be upheld. 64%, in fact, according to the latest polls. I'm sure if you can count, you can understand that some of those have to also be of the 50% who consider themselves "pro-life". That was my point.

"No, nearly two-thirds of the population want RvW to be upheld. 64%, in fact, according to the latest polls."

Prove that claim. Most pro-lifers want to allow for a woman to have a right to abort if she'd die without one. That's not "wanting RvW to be upheld".

enough wrote:

Roe and Wade called, they said this thread is done. move on.

The country will never agree 100% on this subject. It boils down to pro-choice and anti-choice. Some feel the need to control other adult's decisions in life and the other side truely believes they can make those decisions on their own. The presidential election is headed for a pro-choice vs anti-choice showdown unless the Republican party changes their stand. I've already seen "Republican For Obama" bumper stickers.

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>The law of limited competition. Such that:
1) You may compete to the full extent of your abilities,
2) but you may not hunt down your competitors and destroy their food, or
3) deny them access to food.
Because 6 million of us are pursuing an unstable evolutionary strategy, we are fundamentally attacking the very ecological systems which keep us alive.
And the Law of Abundance and Decline, such that for every other species on Earth:
1) An increase in food availability = growth, and
2) A decrease in food availability = decline
We continue to produce an abundance of food, which in turn, continues to produce an increase in population, and we do not allow the production of food to decline, so that our numbers may do so.

Exactly.

And I think you mean 7 billion.

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>The law of limited competition. Such that:
1) You may compete to the full extent of your abilities,
2) but you may not hunt down your competitors and destroy their food, or
3) deny them access to food.
Because 6 million of us are pursuing an unstable evolutionary strategy, we are fundamentally attacking the very ecological systems which keep us alive.
And the Law of Abundance and Decline, such that for every other species on Earth:
1) An increase in food availability = growth, and
2) A decrease in food availability = decline
We continue to produce an abundance of food, which in turn, continues to produce an increase in population, and we do not allow the production of food to decline, so that our numbers may do so.

Wow, that's deep. Who are the 6 million? I thought people were starving to death in some places.

ThomasA wrote:

<quoted text>The country will never agree 100% on this subject. It boils down to pro-choice and anti-choice. Some feel the need to control other adult's decisions in life and the other side truely believes they can make those decisions on their own. The presidential election is headed for a pro-choice vs anti-choice showdown unless the Republican party changes their stand. I've already seen "Republican For Obama" bumper stickers.

Then Obama should win easily.

The first doublings of the Earth's human population, from the earliest traceable origins of Homo Sapiens (meaning, when there were enough of us to leave a fossil record for the current 'us' to read) to the advent of totalitarian agriculture occurred roughly every nineteen thousand years.
Starting at ten million, around the time of the Fertile Crescent's discovery, our population doubled in five thousand years.(20 million people on the face of the Earth.) The next doubling (and some extra, actually, since 50 million was the end result) took 2 thousand years. In another 1600 years, there were 100 million. In 1200 AD, we were 400 million. 800 million, 500 years later, and by 1900 we were a billion and a half. In 1960, we were three billion. Billion, Ink. Three Billion People. In 2000, it was 6 billion. Can you extrapolate what it will be in 2020, should this trend continue? Do you really think we will last to 2050?

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
And you'd still be wrong. The numbers are what they've been for a long time. Holding steady. The polls don't ask, "upheld for now". They ask about "upheld", or "overturned".
And you are still missing the point, that some of those who want it upheld are some of those who consider themselves pro-life, and so that designation is pretty useless in determining who wants what.
You're the one who brought up percentage points, and now you want to ignore them. Why is that?

Most pro life people would want a woman to be able to have an abortion if her life was in danger or in some other very restricted situation. That doesn't mean they favor abortion on demand.

LadiLulu wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly.
And I think you mean 7 billion.

You're quite correct, although possibly on the low side.

The good news is, there are STILL people who ARE NOT breaking or refusing to live by the laws of evolution - we are human, without a doubt, but we are not humanity........and there will be a few of us left.(Just probably not this culture's 'us'....)

:)

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, that's deep. Who are the 6 million? I thought people were starving to death in some places.

The six Billion (well, 7, maybe encroaching on 8 by now,) are those who insist on using totalitarian agriculture as an evolutionary strategy - that's most of the world, east, west, north, and south. Totalitarian agriculture is pursued by waging war against every competing species which we perceive as a threat to our food supply:
Bugs in the grain? DDT.
Coyotes on the ranch? Extermination.
Folks on the other side of one, politically? Genocide.

No other species has ever done this.

Ah, the table didn't copy right. For those too dumb to interpret, I'll try to fix it.

Agree Disagree Unsure
2/14-20/12 64% 31% 5%

Hopefully it will work this time. If not, the link is still there for anyone who really wants to know.

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Most pro life people would want a woman to be able to have an abortion if her life was in danger or in some other very restricted situation. That doesn't mean they favor abortion on demand.

You're still missing the point. RvW doesn't specify those restrictions. They want RvW upheld. This is not brain surgery here. RvW is clear that a woman may have an abortion on demand up to a certain point for any reason whatsoever, and that they state may impose restrictions after that, if they choose. THAT is what nearly two-thirds of the population want upheld, and that INCLUDES some of those 50% who consider themselves "pro-life". Get it now?

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>The six Billion (well, 7, maybe encroaching on 8 by now,) are those who insist on using totalitarian agriculture as an evolutionary strategy - that's most of the world, east, west, north, and south. Totalitarian agriculture is pursued by waging war against every competing species which we perceive as a threat to our food supply:
Bugs in the grain? DDT.
Coyotes on the ranch? Extermination.
Folks on the other side of one, politically? Genocide.
No other species has ever done this.

You aren't really saying the answer it to let the bugs eat the grain and the coyotes eat the lambs and calves. Then there would be no point to ranching and farming. Do you want us to go back to being hunter/gatherers and compete with the wildlife? That would certainly reduce the population if that is the desired effect.

The time to begin is now to aborted or not. americansclickhere.com

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
You aren't really saying the answer it to let the bugs eat the grain and the coyotes eat the lambs and calves. Then there would be no point to ranching and farming. Do you want us to go back to being hunter/gatherers and compete with the wildlife? That would certainly reduce the population if that is the desired effect.

What I 'want' doesn't matter - what I'm talking about is what 'worked' for 3 million freaking years.

We are consigning ourselves to extinction, and I think it will happen within the next 20 years. Can you even imagine what 12 BILLION people will look like? How about 24 BILLION by the year 2030? 48 Billion by 2035?

We gotta do something - outlawing abortion on demand, ain't it.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
You're still missing the point. RvW doesn't specify those restrictions. They want RvW upheld. This is not brain surgery here. RvW is clear that a woman may have an abortion on demand up to a certain point for any reason whatsoever, and that they state may impose restrictions after that, if they choose. THAT is what nearly two-thirds of the population want upheld, and that INCLUDES some of those 50% who consider themselves "pro-life". Get it now?

I don't how I can be more clear. Concentrate. Some pro life folks want RvW upheld so that a woman can get an abortion if her life is in danger or for other very restricted reasons. They think restricting abortion after viability is a step in the right direction. I don't think your strong card is knowing what pro life people think. Better to continue to tell us how a uterus trumps a fetus.