Search results

By state of the world, I mean extreme overpopulation. Particularly selfish in Australia, given our (very) limited resources. EDIT: What Katie said.

I think that having a child in ANY instance is selfish, given the state of the world. EDIT: I don't mean to say that selfishness is a bad thing. It is still selfish, however.

:p That's actually pretty close to my worldview. Thus, now I must worship The Pitt.

Mmm Brad Pitt.

I'd get it seen to sooner rather than later.

I'm just a sucker for punishment :(

If you suffered it, you wouldn't know or care. Another argument from emotional rhetoric, please.

Oh wow. Many flaws here. Firstly, how do you know animals do not develop sapience? Yes, many animals are "unconscious", but many are conscious, and we still kill them. Point? Ah, so it's back to the old "HUMANS R SPESHUL" chestnut again. I don't CARE that a human foetus has the potential to...

Not really. Assume you were using both condoms and the pill, and correctly. The pill has a failure rate of about 0.05-0.1%. The condom has a failure rate of up to around 10%, so combine that to get a hypothetical failure rate of, IDK, 0.01%. Times that by 21 million people, and you get 2100...

Probably, which is why I don't actually agree with having an "absolute limit". If you HAVE to have a legal boundary, have it somewhere around there.

Risky? No. You can be pretty damned sure that it's impossible to think before one's brain starts firing (or before one even has a brain).

You're right, in some respects. In fact, there's a paper somewhere (which I can't be bothered to dig up) that asserts that human infants do not even show full sentience/sapience/self-awareness until they are two years old. My time limit instead is a recording on when the physical architecture...

No, a sane one.

So do cows. Your point?

The common brands (Trojan, Ansell) etc all use the same materials, so no. And not every one can take the pill (males included).

AFAIK, "retards" can still think and are still self-aware. Now, if you're asking me if it would have been kinder to abort individuals who are so profoundly "retarded" as to be essentially vegetative, then yes, I would say that.

No. The statistical chances of a condom breaking are pretty high, even with proper use, which is why I do not rely on them.

1. Because the foetus, I don't know, can't think? 2. For me, when there is measurable brain activity and a functioning nervous system, which I believe is somewhere in the vicinity of 24 weeks. 3. No. My mother had an abortion prior to having my sister and me, and I was almost aborted. I don't...

It's not that, no. I just don't have any romantic notions about speciesism, and neither is it about value - or are you saying that human potential always is > than other animal potential? How speciesist of you!

That can be a reaction to some formulations of the pill. Ask your doctor for a different one. (I went on Monofeme for cramps/contraception. Gained no weight)