[Truth To Power]

Also at some point a heartbeat can be detected indicating a living baby that should also be given consideration.

A heartbeat does not indicate a living baby. If you open a fertile egg after a week, you can see a tracery of veins and a heart beating in the yolk.

After all we don't want to be a barbaric society that murders babies like the ancient pagans.

The ancient pagans killed babies that were living separately from their mothers and were thus separate human beings. A pre-viable fetus is not a separate living being as it cannot live separately from its mother.

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross

From the OP, you seem to want to discuss why we should control human reproduction. So, why should we?

You also alluded to the Marxist idea of controlling the means of production. Do you think the two are comparable? If so, how?

[SolarCross]

From the OP, you seem to want to discuss why we should control human reproduction. So, why should we?

Who is "we"? I am just asking which model of production, de-centralised or centralised, you prefer for the production of humans. My preference is for de-centralised, the normal model, so it is not for me to make the case for centralised control. If there is anyone into that then they need to do it, so far no one but @SSDR seems interested. Even you seem to prefer de-centralised.

You also alluded to the Marxist idea of controlling the means of production. Do you think the two are comparable? If so, how?

I have never heard of a marxist be precise over which if not all means of production they want to monopolise so it is fair to wonder if they mean ALL means of production over ALL things, which would include human babies.

[SSDR]

@Godstud, Well, if the world population is high enough to not be effected by some not reproducing, then it wouldn't really be harmful if one isn't allowed to have children because having children can be a stressful duty, depending on the situation. I don't support castration at least. Now that I am against.

[Godstud]

@SSDR It's a well known fact that the richer the country is, the lower the birth rates.

Thailand's fertility rate went from 6 in the 1970s to 1.48 in 2016. Canada, in comparison is 1.60, and the USA is 1.80. The better the people live, the less children they have. This is because they live longer and don't die in childbirth. Religion also plays a role, although a smaller one.

[Hindsite]

A heartbeat does not indicate a living baby.

If it is not its own heartbeat, then what determines that a baby in the womb is living?

[Godstud]

No. A heartbeat does not indicate life. Brainwaves do, and it is not until the second trimester that the brain even operate the organs.

That said, Abortion is not murder. It's also off-topic.

[Pants-of-dog]

Who is "we"? I am just asking which model of production, de-centralised or centralised, you prefer for the production of humans. My preference is for de-centralised, the normal model, so it is not for me to make the case for centralised control.

So you think that only the woman should get to decide?

If there is anyone into that then they need to do it, so far no one but @SSDR seems interested. Even you seem to prefer de-centralised.

@Hindsite,
@Hong Wu,
@Verv,

All three of these people have supported state intervention in childbirth in one way or another. Please note that none are leftists.

Some of their argunents actually discuss historical methods of doing so, which suggests that laissez faire is not the human default as you previously claimed.

And if you do not know my position on reproductive rights by now, then you should ask instead of making incorrect assumptions.

I have never heard of a marxist be precise over which if not all means of production they want to monopolise so it is fair to wonder if they mean ALL means of production over ALL things, which would include human babies.

Are you saying that you do not know why Marxists want to give the means of production to the working class?

If you did, you would know which means of production we are talking about.

Do you want me to explain it?

[Verv]

@SSDR It's a well known fact that the richer the country is, the lower the birth rates.

Thailand's fertility rate went from 6 in the 1970s to 1.48 in 2016. Canada, in comparison is 1.60, and the USA is 1.80. The better the people live, the less children they have. This is because they live longer and don't die in childbirth. Religion also plays a role, although a smaller one.

I think that it goes something like this...

Capitalist systems demand lots of labor.
Capitalist systems effectively reward a lot of labor and become entrenched.
People begin studying longer, working harder, and becoming more atomized in the pursuit of their career.
People become rich.
And, then, inward looking, atomized people who are also now forced to work long hours to maintain their standard of living stop having children.

It is possible to maintain a high birth rate and have a wealthy, comfortable existence. It's just that we do not do it.

I predict one of the more surprising results of a post-scarcity economy will actually be higher birth rates.

[Hindsite]

No. A heartbeat does not indicate life. Brainwaves do, and it is not until the second trimester that the brain even operate the organs.

That said, Abortion is not murder. It's also off-topic.

I have heard that the heartbeat can be detected on day 21 and the brainwaves can be detected on day 40. So then we must have a living baby in the womb by day 40 when both the heartbeat and the brainwaves indicate life.

[Godstud]

As I already mentioned, the brain is incapable of even running the organs until much later. If the fetus is removed from the womb, at this time, it would die. Having only the functions to run the body is not really "life". There's a reason they let people who only do this die.

[Hindsite]

As I already mentioned, the brain is incapable of even running the organs until much later. If the fetus is removed from the womb, at this time, it would die. Having only the functions to run the body is not really "life". There's a reason they let people who only do this die.

But to me, that is no reason to remove it from the womb and let it die. As long as it is still growing and shows those signs of life, we should allow it to continue and not deliberately murder it.

[Godstud]

It's not murder. Your emotional argument is shit, as it always is.

[Hindsite]

:roll: It's not murder. Your emotional argument is shit, as it always is.

Well, it is least killing it, since it is very likely that it will be born as a healthy boy or girl if not interfered with.

[Godstud]

Irrelevant.

[Verv]

@Godstud, your post #14993766 is pure ad hominem, and you are providing one line -- one WORD -- responses and dismissals. This isn't how a discussion should be done.
---

If a fetus isn't alive, why do you have to take action against it? It's dead, isn't it?

If you have to take an action to prevent it from fully maturing and being born, it's alive.

... And what is its DNA? What does it become in 18 years?

A living, breathing human.

How is this an emotional argument? How is Hindsite's argument emotional?

You are the one reaching for terse invective.

[SolarCross]

The abortion debate is off-topic here.

[Pants-of-dog]

The abortion debate is off-topic here.

Not really, since it is a religious manner of centralising control over human reproduction.

[SolarCross]

Not really, since it is a religious manner of centralising control over human reproduction.

No, it is comparable to the regulation the chinese are doing with their one child policy. Regulation is a step away from laissez faire in the direction of centralised state ownership but only one step. Perhaps I should have had a third position for the reproductive keynesians.

1. Laissez faire - free reproduction
2. Keynes - regulated reproduction
3. Marx - monopolised reproduction

--------------

So you think that only the woman should get to decide

I am going with Laissez faire so in most cases that would be "the woman" deciding I guess (though I do understand and sympathise with the pro-life contingent, they are well meaning if nothing else).

All three of these people have supported state intervention in childbirth in one way or another. Please note that none are leftists.

Some of their argunents actually discuss historical methods of doing so, which suggests that laissez faire is not the human default as you previously claimed.

And if you do not know my position on reproductive rights by now, then you should ask instead of making incorrect assumptions.

They are supporting some regulation of reproduction. A little regulation is not "centralisation" or else the land of the free, the US, is already a communist hellhole. Laissez faire and Keynes are both capitalism, both are de-centralised production just the latter has a master pulling the strings a little.

[Truth To Power]

If it is not its own heartbeat, then what determines that a baby in the womb is living?

A pre-viable fetus is living, like any other part of the woman's body. It is not a SEPARATE life because it cannot LIVE SEPARATELY from her body.