Why 'breed' reluctantly and for the sake of it when you have all these immigrants (to fill in the gaps on the labour market)? Or are there other reasons? What's the exact issue with the national birth rate going down according to you?
I honestly feel like people are getting smarter when I hear this, but honestly I don't believe it. Not without serious evidence. The world clock is ticking... U.S. Population (2019) - Worldometers These figures show a upward sloping line without noticeable plateaus. I don't think it's sustainable. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-states-population/
Also the concept of alpha males is bullshit. You're just using it to describe people who disagree with you. Which is most people.
I agree fully. Too much of the way the world runs is built on a flawed Continuous-Growth model. Stagnant economies can fall into depression faster than they can boom (when that circumstance might appear). But consider who it is contributing to the global population rise in the greatest numbers, enough to eclipse the ones in population decline. A hint, it's not enlightened leftists. It's not even fundamentalist right wing fanatics. It's peasants. As it has always been.
I don't think the right wing extremists have thought this one through all the way. If the detectable heart beat test shows that's a human baby, not a fetus; then there is an argument for welfare checks to the Mom at the same moment, and child support laws would need to be changed accordingly. Dem Republicans ain't gonna like that!
If a fetus is a human with full rights, then women should be able to take out life insurance policies after the first heartbeat monitor and collect in the event of miscarriage ^I actually find that thought distateful and disturbing but they're opening the doors wide open for that sort of thing, particularly if it goes to the Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade is overturned. If fetal personhood is acknowledged at the federal level they will be opening a huuuge can of legal worms
IF this gets to the supreme court. I don't think it will. I think these odd state laws will be reversed in district courts. I think it's a distraction, but largely because I can readily see how many people are totally distracted by it. It eats up bandwidth ahead of the elections and has the traction to be contested all the way up to election day. For the governors it's a win-win. When it's shut down they can say "well, I tried (now please vote for me again)". If by some weird quirk it leads to the Supreme court or even a reversal of federal law, then they are "winners" and will be reelected handily. Speaking of quirks, Alabama's governor is the first woman elected to that post. However, it was the wife of George Wallace who was the first woman to serve as governor (for a little over a year) because of a weird Alabama statute about consecutive terms (crony politics at it's absolute finest).
This is almost certainly what will happen. It'll make it to the district court before the law is enacted. Every district court will cite Roe as precedent, and John Roberts is an institutionalist and has no desire to want to re-litigate a case with 50 years of precedent. They are shifting the center of the debate though. Before Roe V Wade, in states where abortion was illegal, there was nothing close to a 99 year penalty for abortions, and medical exceptions were left up to doctors, not defined by politicians. I think that may be what this is about from a strategic standpoint rather than getting the laws themselves passed. It's why I say things like 'abortion should be mandatory as well'. Obviously that's a crazy position. But if you're debating whether abortion should be mandatory or not, you're shifting what's conceivable.
Texas of course, is trying to do it bigger. A Texas bill would allow the death penalty for patients who get abortions
So trump says he opposes this bill. It will be curious to see who wins this argument come the 2020 election. trump, or the alabama legislature.
He's automatically entitled to his abortion opinion. Quite tedious people are arguing over that just because his opinion will not be the primary valued one (on which i bet we all agree in the end anyway). But he's also so dense on feminism in general he also deserves to be ignored
He kind of has to, right? If you're asked whether an 11 year old impregnated by her father should be forced to give birth to the baby, and you say yes, you're going to lose a lot of votes. Even for trump's base, that's a bit fucked up.