The point shouldn't necessarily be to have more children.

[jayctravis]

There's been a seeming move by religious groups to foist a sort of philosophy on us. Human life is sacred. It is a miracle that happens.

There are certain sub groups which seem to have desire to subvert and control the natural impulses the human body has. These impulses come from the *same* natural human process that continuously reminds us of that miracle that is conception. It should be a sacred thing and all humans have a natural impulse to carry out the machinations of this miracle.

The earth has plenty of people living on it. The decision to bring another life in is the commitment and decision of the individual woman, along with the circle of relatives and others whom she trusts.

Evolution teaches us that Mother Nature has a powerful system of natural selection. Animals exhibit family groupings that shift; cats will sleep with dogs, a duckling whose mother has died can be encircled in the shifting numbers of another brood. They also exhibit homosexuality, which is merely a natural population control group that is impossible to eliminate.

I challenge the religious segment of the populace, especially those progressive enough to have women in charge, to consider leaving off opposing abortion. I suggest you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who honestly thinks that an abortion is something undertaken blithely and without regret. I would hope nobody ever has to make that decision. Preplanning is the best defense of making such a mistake. The energy devoted to inhibiting education for women in places that are overpopulated in locations that cannot support that population could be directed toward sensible education about life, birth, and contraception, family planning and adoption services. Many "primitive" cultures who have developed their own religion did this successfully.

This is the engine to reduce the number of pregnancy terminations that do happen down to the occasional but necessary; those performed in cases of rape, incest, or where the health of the mother is threatened.

[luxpara]

1. Here's the question of the night...

will the kid-happy cons end up a higher demographic if the reproduce exponential more than the libs?

Scary thought...

[YIMA]

2. Ah Yes, the "Roe" Effect

The WSJ did a whole write up on that very thing just a few months ago.

For those not familiar, the "Roe" Effect is a theory floated that says that since more liberals would have abortions than conservatives, that conservatives will be the majority. They even calculated how many abortions have taken place since 1973, how many of those aborted would have been alive today, and how many would have likely voted for Kerry over Bush. Put it to you this way, according to their calculations, it would have been enough to give Kerry the win by a wide margin.

[The Straight Story]

3. Hmmmm - does that mean * is higher up than we are??

Evolution teaches us that Mother Nature has a powerful system of natural selection.

In which case, * is in power and a step up the evolutionary chain. Scary thought.

If we engage survival of the fittest, et al, than * is way ahead of me or you. Why should he care at all? Why should the right care at all? All me, me, me and now, now , now.

* is in power. The right is in power. If this is evolution, than leave me out.

Who are you to decide that the earth has 'plenty' of people living on it? What power do you have in this scheme of evolution? If mother nature (whatever that is) decides that we have a natural selection, why shouldn't people like us fall by the wayside while more powerful and rich people populate? Maybe it does. We abort, they don't. They grown in number, while we don't.

Scary thought to me personally.

[jayctravis]

4. Bush has a lot of people helping.

I don't think he was naturally selected.

[The Straight Story]

6. Then those helping were

naturally selected. Unless evolution has a gap problem. He is in power, his ideas are in power. If Evolution is right, then at this moment in time he is the right person to be in power...

If evolution is science based solely, then how come (after these many millions of years) do we find ourselves with * in power??? Even if he cheated, that does not matter (cheating is a sign perhaps of someone above our abililty).

If evolution is our belief, than perhaps we should accept what we have and work with it, after a billion years or more how could it be wrong??

[bliss_eternal]

5. Just because they 'say' abortion is wrong

doesn't mean they haven't had one themselves or wouldn't. I've seen statistics that cite many women that are now pro life once had an abortion, couldn't deal with the trauma and now spend their time telling other women it's wrong. I have a problem with this line of thinking.

There's also the conservatives that say in theory that it is wrong, but have the money to fly off somewhere and have it done very hush hush.

So I don't necessarily buy into the idea that more of us have abortions than they do.

[luxpara]

7. I'm counting on gay people adopting

or having kids to even this out somewhat. How sad would it be to under breed overselves out of existance...