| luinil said: @ikilledkenny: I already have shown that it can shift that much in a year. 96-97 was a 9 point jump. @blegs1992: I fail to see how wanting to protect of a innocent unborn baby is saying "all women should be at home." And your arguments have already been answered, but to reiterate.... You have a choice, engage in a risky behavior with potentially unwanted consequences (a child), or not to engage in it. Why not use double protection? How about a morning after pill in some cases? Or perhaps the oldest form of birth control? I don't know what a child may grow up to be, but aborting them before we find out is a risky proposition. You might have just killed the next great artist of this century. There are plenty of resources to feed and clothe and house most or even everyone in this world. Sadly there are other political problems with getting that done, like warlords and other such things. |
Alright, I hate this argument so much. Do you really think we need to have more kids to find the great artist of the century, or the one who will cure cancer? Trust me, this planet has plenty of kids already. If we really cared about children, the U.S. in particular would focus more money on education and less on the military, and third world governments would put money into agriculture and education instead of keeping themselves in power. What about the kid that's starving in a third world country, do you think he could have been the great artist of the century? For all we know, if he had been born in the right place at the right time, he could have been. All I'm saying is that the people on earth right now have plenty of potential, and a fetus isn't any more promising than any kid already born.
