http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25393910

It's okay to disagree with them, but I hardly think that it's hardcore anti-abortion if you want to try and save this baby.  I honestly don't know what I'd tell her to do if I were her parents.  There's always adoption.

Nuclearcow (6/26/2008)

---

*looks at the bomb ddmagnan threw and decides not to touch it*

Aww come on.  It will not go off.  I promise.  Just poke it a few times.

I tell ya what I think  . . . if there were some reliable and readily reversible means to temporarily sterilize all people . . . it should be obligatory at about age 7.

Then _IF_ you pass an extensive, and rigorous battery of tests (created by developmental scientists, educators, cops, health professionals, etc.) you can get the procedure reversed, and get licensed to procreate. Any child found to be an "unlicensed" child becomes de facto a ward of the state, although remaining in parental custody in a sort of probationary period of a year to two, during which time the illegitimate (meaning unlicensed) parents must pass the battery of tests else share long-term custody with social services. Also, parents of unlicensed children, are immediately charged, and tried with the misdemeanour "Operating an Unregistered Reproductive Apparatus." If found guilty they are of course subject to the termporary Reproductive Cessation Treatment, and also subject to fines, community service, and educational 'indoctrination' . . .

The rest of the nations in the world can either adopt the Scipio World Order or lose all U.S. trade subsidies, grants, aid, etc.

The Scipio World Order would make all debates about abortion moot, and instead put the debates where they should be: what is a good parent, and what is the range of acceptable that should be allowed by society for someone to plead their personal privilege of being licensed by society to become a parent?

As far as the economic crunch that could ensue if the current models of social welfare are not altered to fit with the long-term demographic changes from radically reduced rates of pumping out babies: robots, more efficient management and labor organization, an end to offshoring, and elimation of the enormous U.S. tax code with a simple consumption based tax system or something of that nature . . . .

Building ANYTHING more than 5 miles from one of the centers of an existing major metro area would become essentially illegal. Structures (including roads) deemed to be non-essential to sustainble society would be razed, and disintegrated into their components to provide bases for new wildlife habitat. Vast tracts of land currently squandered on things like free-range cattle, suburbia, bedroom communities, shopping malls, etc., would be over the course of the next 20 years, dismantled, and returned back to mother nature, with the long-term goal being to concentrate humanity the way it needs to be in order to achieve a truly sustainable human presence in the global ecology: condensed, efficient communities with minimal infrastructure beyond city centers sufficient to maintain nature conservation and interpretation, but not to allow actual human invasion of and destruction of wildlife habitat. I'd say concentrating humanity into about 1/10th the space it currently squanders could go hand in hand nicely with reducing our population below one billion within the next 500 years . . .

Don't worry, I (or one of my sage advisors on the 1BC game site) have it all figured out, so you're in good hands with Team Africanus, world social engineers and policemen . . .

The rights of the individual must not be exaggerated to the point of the long-term viability of the many, meaning humans and all the other species and ecological communities of Earth.

. . . Now, what was this about some "controversy" about aborting some fetus somewhere?

I think that if this girl had told her parents what had happened and had an abortion early on, there would not be such an uproar.  The problem is, at this stage in development, babies can actually survive outside the womb.  There's a lady in my neighborhood who had a baby born at around 20 weeks.  It had severe health problems for a few months and had to be on an incubator and all sorts of IVs but now she's relatively healthy and beautiful. 

This case is a rather extreme case however.  She was raped and is only a child herself and so while I'm of the opinion that most abortions are immoral (though not murder), I would take exception to this one.  Now one must look at the child in the womb.  I know she's scared but why not give this child to someone who really wants one but can't have one?  Blaming or condemning this girl if she has an abortion would be wrong but I don't hold anything against a group who wants to try and save this child.