Paul Ehrlich: Pro-Life Policies 'Kill Women'

Complete video at: fora.tv/2009/04...
Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich argues that anti-abortion policies harm women's rights, while family planning programs raise levels of education. "When you refuse to give women access to safe abortion, all it does is kill women," Ehrlich states.
-----
Ehrlich has famously sought to discover how humans and other species impact evolution, and how evolution impacts us. He co-founded the field of co-evolution and sounded alarms about the consideration of environment and population growth in creating public policy. Come hear a fascinating discussion on how we are affecting our environment and how we can positively impact our world. - Commonwealth Club of California
Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is a Stanford University professor and a renowned entomologist specializing in Lepidoptera (butterflies). He is also well known as a researcher and author on the subject of human overpopulation. Ehrlich has written numerous books on the subjects of ecology, entomology, overpopulation, and related subjects. His best known book is The Population Bomb, published in 1968.

[@usagi18]

The 3-month-old fetus is already formed, it has its organs, actually, has a nervous system and it's face features are recognizable... sorry, but "getting rid of" a 3-month-old is killing, wether if you like it or not.

[@usagi18]

Considering "getting rid of a problem" when you already screwed it up doesn't sound responsible to me. And my parents had their first baby 3 years after they got married, by the way.

[@AsSomedayItMayHappen]

tattootomorrow: While I agree with you, I urge you to be careful in trying to establish causation, or even correlation between the legal state of abortion, and the rates of infanticide. Simply because countries without legalized abortion have higher rates of infanticide, this does not imply that the higher rates are caused by abortion being illegal. There are a number of factors that play into this; the legal status of abortion being just one.

[@CDRphoenix]

People are still listening to Erlich ... about anything? I guess when you say something people like to hear, it doesn't matter how ridiculous it is or how often you've been shown as dead wrong. It's sad that reason plays so little of a role in forming opinions...

[@cr4yv3n]

Mainly neo nazis and ecofascists... Errr I mean environmentalists.

[@Eldeecue]

We all make mistakes; some of us just have abortions instead.

[@usagi18]

In the wild, "affording" means "surviving"... here, it means "party's over"... nite, kkk

[@vechorik]

@merdufer And ultra-sound photos of the babies shown to mothers. Everyone should vote for candidates who are for LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness via the US Constitution. I'm proud that my presidential candidate's is pro-life, Ron Paul, as a doctor & his view of abortion: (quite touching) /watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc

[@angelshoulders]

? Even though they will almost certainly be able to recover to full function in time? I think a majority of people would find slaying that person unjust, and insist that care be provided. Certainly when someone is found unconscious there is no reason to regard their human rights impaired, even though for a period they are not "Sentient", neither should the rights of the unborn be abridged for this reason. So then person's like lepers and the paralyzed should also be put to death.

[@usagi18]

Yup, you decide when to have sex, who you have sex with and if you use contraceptives or not, that's your body and you decide on it. But you just can't decide if someone else lives or dies, it's someone else's body. You can decide if you keep the baby or give it for adoption. Yeah, sometimes the only choice is abortion, and that's when the mother is in serious danger.. and yet, some mothers still take the chance and risk their lives. Does anybody risk their lives for a "simple bunch of cells"?

[@segamegadrive3460]

I love this fucking guy

[@cr4yv3n]

Why?

[@angelshoulders]

I do believe women have more sense than to risk their own injury or even death like this. There will always be those who disobey the law of the land, but this is no excuse for making a bad practice legal. To bring this to its logical conclusion, should we make child molesting, drunk driving and drug taking legal too, just because a small minority persist in doing it? The 'butchers' are still around, buddy, only nowadays they're in the HIGH streets (PP).

[@angelshoulders]

Let's say a human falls unconscious, or goes into a coma. Certainly our society has a debate about continuing support for persons not expected to recover from a coma, but what if the prognosis said that they would have a 100% chance of recovery within 9 months if support were maintained (or even 85%, certainly pregnancy isn't a 100% chance of success)? Would it be ethical to say the person just because they are for the time being not "sentient" or otherwise capable of caring for themselves?

[@SerpentFire]

....this was there spiritual belief. don't seem right to us but it was "right" to them. birthcontrol, infanticide, and abortion has always existed and always will.

[@iammarkfitz]

@merdufer Isn't morality what gave us social order? Your comment about evidence of harming social order... if you don't dig, you will come to that conclusion but there aren't enough characters here to go through the list of harm it causes. Adoption is a great point. Have you ever watched a sonogram of an abortion? Shouldn't you see what it is you support? Just a few mouse clicks away.

[@truthinreality9907]

PAVANZYL: First of all, it is possible to point out an injustice even when one does not provide the solution. People could say slavery was wrong even if they did not open their homes to a slave. Secondly, by shifting the topic in point from the morality of abortion to the 'solution' of social problems, you avoid the question. Although a clever move, it has nothing to do with the fact that abortion results in the death of human beings, or whether or not abortion is immoral, it's life or death.

[@merdufer]

Law exists to uphold social order, not morality. It is immoral to disrespect your parents, but it's not illegal. Law should intervene only when immorality jeopardizes social order. It doesn't matter how much you dislike abortion, There is no evidence that its legalization harms the social order. On the contrary, making it illegal can cause troubles. The pro-life camp should focus on preventing abortion through promoting adoption and sex education, instead of trying to make it illegal.

[@frankroto]

A 3 mo. old fetus is not a person. That's why a mom who miscarries a 3 mo. old fetus does not bury or cremate it, or otherwise treat it as she would treat a baby of hers who died after birth. Because it is not (yet) a person. But you see that the answer to the question "when does a fetus become a baby--a person?" is not clear and people will always disagree about it. The fight is not between "pro-choice" and "pro-life", it's between "it's a person" and "no, it isn't".

[@merdufer]

I wouldn't say "abortion is good". Ideally, no abortion should ever need to be performed. As much as I am against anti-abortion legislation, I don't like the possible physical and mental harm to the mother, as well as the moral implication of abortion, especially in late abortion. In China, abortion of girls has caused the population of male to be much greater than female. When it's treated as a solution instead of last resort, abortion can go ugly.

[@iammarkfitz]

@merdufer pah...lease... the eggs you eat are not fertilized. If a hen happens to have "an encounter" with a rooster and the egg is fertilized it is removed from those that get sold. So, if you asked for eggs and you got a mutilated little chicken was that an egg?

[@Andybaby]

I say abortions should be legal until 18 years. Many parents just cannot deal with a teenager, and its cruel on the teenagers to have to live in imperfect conditions.

[@Josohenz]

It's not a question of the men's rights vs women's rights, stupid. It's a case of working for the common good. Birth control programs are disastrous.

[@valgehiir]

kill in more than one way

[@merdufer]

Whether it's "murder" or not depends on your definition of a human being. In any case, if I ordered chicken at the restaurant and they give me an egg, I'd be pretty pissed.

[@thehessmoshow]

merdufer I imagine if you cracked open the egg and found it didn’t contain a yolk or whites, but an undeveloped chicken, you feel even weirder.

[@AlongtheFarClimbDown843]

"...The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size." -- Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," pages 130-131

[@cr4yv3n]

Yeah that is totally not dystopia 🤣😂

[@SerpentFire]

looks like you need to be going after margaret sanger instead of prochoicers.