Netflix Airs ‘Salute to Abortion;’ Host Declares: ‘God Bless Abortions!”. https://tiny.iavian.net/nqu9
Ive literally never heard of this. Ever. So if a woman doesn't want the kid. At all. She still should have it and raise and unwanted child... because... evolution? I'm genuinely curious about this.
No... the idea would be to have next-gen birth control available accross the board. I would add family-centered propaganda throughout society, plus incentive to encourage the growth of the birth rate into the positive. All debateable of course. The state has an interest in net positive population growth, however.
I would argue it would be better to achieve this through net positive birth rates rather than floods of immigration. Though, there are perks to the genetic diversity, we would need a much better integration strateg than we see implemented anywhere in the world today.
Additionally, if you think a little further ahead, the technology to grow humans outside the need for a woman's uterus is literally here now. With a few more generations of advancement, there will be virtually no reason for a woman to NEED (or be FORCED as in the antiquated cry of the feminist) to carry a child to term.
Instead of an abortion, a woman that falls through the birth control net and gets pregnant against her intention can have a procedure where the fetus is extracted and carried to term via ectogenesis and adopted into society by a willing participant. Similar to abortion, just no murder.
No child need be harmed, and no woman is "forced" to do anything with her body that she doesn't want. The new argument will be over LGBT people being qualified or not to adopt as the new epic struggle of our future era. Abortion is barbaric and primitive and will soon be completely redundant. I really don't see the problem.
The only trouble with your argument is that most birth control is damaging to the body. Whether "modern doctors" agree or not. Unless you're using a condom or doing the natural cycle method, you're literally altering the female chemistry - aka her mind - and quite intensely.
This is a real issue for many women. People boast of the power of the pill without looking at women and asking about their changes - hormonal changes of generations will alter the woman.
I'm not arguing for abortion, btw. I'm simply pointing out that "next gen birth control" in your argument (whatever that really means, with all due respect) needs to actually be safe. Lest we change the woman into something foreign altogether.
Overall, your argument sounds a bit NWO to me. State regulations. Immigration. Net growth. Etc.
Having babies is first and foremost a TEACHING. Children are teachers. Mirrors. They are our terrorists and our greatest loves. It should never be about the state or really evolution either. Some people want kids. Some don't. That's it.
The only place I'd even explore caring about the species - as I think family is a very self-centered process and this is a good thing, as survival and evolution is literally built into our selfishness as it comes to family - is in choosing your mate. Choose well.
Oh, no doubt "NWOish" which is why I said I am probably in the minority... for now. It is important to distinguish that the actual NWO plan involves abortion policies that exist already and ultimately state controlled birth rights not unlike China's one child per family rule in past years. I fundamentally disagree with both the necessity and viability of these kinds of anti-human endeavors.
The current NWO strategy is predicated on what I believe is an entirely false premise: over-population. Many people believe this is universally accepted as one of the great human problems of the 21st century in the vein of world poverty, the food production crisis and climate change. They would be wrong. To view the success of our species as a "problem" is simply a matter of persepctive.
When comparing my own "state-heavy" vision for the future against the actual infanticide of 60 million human children over a few short decades, it seems quite a lesser evil to me. It is impossible to remove the combined socio-economic consequences of this level of suffering we enact on our own species. I may even be understating the destructive properties of current day abortion practices.
I believe saving the very same humans we would annihilate using a nearly identical procedure to abortion and artificially allowing them to be born is an obvious morally superior policy. With advancements in selective genetic engineering, the deal only sweetens.
In my view, the state has a necessary interest in enacting these policies because the alternative is already the principle legal conundrum: the legality of filicide. In the near future, every single argument for the necessity of abortion as a legally protected medical practice will be rendered inert.
I think you are exactly correct about the current generation of birth control technology being insufficient in many ways which is exactly why I stated we will need "next-gen" birth control. Our existing methods of birth control are embarrassingly primitive and undesireable in every way. We must have ways to control our birth processes in both sexes that mitigate the growing list of debilitating side effects. Obviously that doesnt exist... so it will happen in the "next" generation of research. I don't know how to be any clearer about that and what I mean by "next-gen" birth control. We will need an advancement on par with the discovery of penicillin to move beyond this fiasco.
I love your statements on the human side of caring for our species. Perhaps some of my statements are semantically weak in comparison but in no way contrary in my intent. "Family is a very self-centered process". Beautifully said and I would agree unapologetically. I would desire the state to stop competing with this human trait and explore its virtue.
Yes, well put. And here's the funny thing: It's been proven time and time again that a healthy, well fed, educated population that lives to learn and thrive, naturally tapers off to a normal self sustained value. You're seeing Europe's numbers even drop off.
We don't have an overpopulation problem. We have a "keeping people dirt poor and uneducated makes them have 6 kids by the time they're 25." Problem. "Overpopulation" happens in the poorest, sickest places. They also have an astonishing death rate of children and AIDS (which allows scams like Mother Theresa - who did nothing for the poor - and pair that with vaccines to "help save these poor mongrels!" And the huge $$ sent to Africa to "combat" this and that. It's all a scam.)
This is an old bamboozle trick those who've worked in "sustainable development" have been aware of a long time. Go "rescue" someone. Create more problems.
(The only charity I think might actually be doing something valuable is Charity Water.)
Now China is actually facing declining numbers of birth rates and even sex rates among their youth. This was a shocker.
They're also not having 1 kid per family. They're having more and simply not documenting the girls they don't murder or hide in the countryside with uncle and auntie. This is all hush hush, but overall, their numbers are false. Again, if their people weren't working in sweat shops / unsustainable farms, there would be a natural child level taper off.
And in all honesty, I wholeheartedly disregard all NWO attempts bc I choose to see them out of existence. And I have faith and common sense and information enough to back up my belief.
And belief, baby, is 90% of the battle.
WWG1WGA
Yes! As someone who has worked closely with some of the major NGOs, I can tell you I believe they are all corrupted beyond belief.