Comments on: Why is Japan’s population declining?

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:02:48 +0000

I think it’s a deliberated decision weighing both the pros of life and the cons of finance and viability, and like you, I think it’s unfortunate, but sometimes that’s the lesser of two evils.

I also think both the man and woman should be “fined” (taxed?) for their irresponsibility, but that the process should be allowed, and all of the accumulated “fines” should be put towards producing free condoms and information on the responsibility of safe sex.

In the case of rape, the fine should obviously be waived. Misrepresenting a rape-case would be a criminal offense.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: kabocha

kabocha — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 06:33:51 +0000

Alex, if you want to go that far, go right ahead.

Shit, I’m just trying to point out one thing that I think makes abortion objectionable, the potential for a lifetime that is attributed by others. There is hardly any potential when we consider your mocking example using single gametes. And in reality, the odds for successful fertilization are quite low, so there’s not much point in anticipating the birth of another human being before that event.

Here, I’ll actually let you know my own views since you seem to think I’m some moralistic extremist: If it has to be done, or if the parent chooses to do it, I think it would be sad, but I do believe that it is not my place or a government’s to remove the option to go ahead with that choice. I understand that in some cases it may actually have to be done… That’s probably a pretty typical way of looking at it.

There.

So what do you think? Do you think it’s sad, or do you think it’s simply removing a lump of inert tissue that happens to be shaped roughly like a human being? You don’t have to answer, just convey a bit more repect next time, please. You too, Overthinker.

I generally like reading what you two write for comments here. I just hope you guys are not, in your pride, resorting to mockery just because some other discussant has a point that you might find difficult to counter.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:15:10 +0000

Yeah, “I read in the news that…,” “In this book I’m reading the author talks about…,” “My friend told me this great joke, it went…,” etc. I don’t try to play it off like I created the content to try and make myself sound smarter.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:06:39 +0000

Because 5th grade school reports on whales are also part of peer review academic forums…

It’s just common sense. Why wouldn’t you cite the source and point out that what you posted here was someone else’s work?

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Joseph Again

Joseph Again — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:29:31 +0000

“self-awareness is an unreasonable condition to be placed on the value of human life. There are developmental disorders that result in a deficit of self-recognition, yet such members of a society are worthy of protection.”
Such members of society(people with developmental disorders that prevent self-awareness) are still human, and in the United States they are protected by law. To submit that an embryo deserves no protection by law because it does not possess self-awareness would also disenfranchise individuals with developmental disorders-this would be a gross social injustice.

On the subject of protection by law:
I stated that, “the purpose of law is to protect people.” I should clarify by adding that law must protect the innocent and weak against the guilty and strong. This is because nobody seriously maintains that there should not be laws against theft, rape, or slavery, because those are clearly cases of oppression. Furthermore, to maintain that a person should be protected “only if he wants to be,” is simply not how moral issues are approached.
I submit again: if abortion is killing a person, and the person is innocent and weak, he should be protected.

In my first comment, I stated that “the purpose of argument is to transfer from ignorance to knowledge.” I also let you know that I respect your honesty, because it does not seem to me that you are being disingenuous.
With that said, by your last comment, it seems as if you have been either been misinformed about,or, are ignoring scientific realities.
You said: “But a four-month embryo has no brain… ”
On the contrary, in day 18-20, it has the foundations of the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system. And in the second month, electric brain wave patterns can be records as evidence of activity (O’Rahilly, R. and Muller, F., Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd Edition, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2001.) Also, at 3 months, the name changes from embryo to fetus. However, I would like to add that in the 4th month, nostrils and toenails become visible, and the baby begins to feel pain (Anand, K and Hickey P, “Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus.” The New England Journal of Medicine, (1987).

For those who follow the abortion debate in the U.S.(like myself), you will notice that it is no longer popular among the majority of abortion supporters to claim there is no human in the womb, or even that human life does not begin at the moment of conception, because the notion that the embryo is merely a “mass of barely distinguished cells” has been dismissed by scientific evidence. Hence, the argument is now is not whether or not woman are killing their unborn child, rather, it is that women have a “right to choose” to kill their unborn child.

Unfortunately, I cannot continue this discussion or entertain your questions any further. Your response will probably go unanswered by me because I have obligations that demand my time and attention,as your protest of Crystal Rights probably demands of you. Still, I would like to read your response.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: ponta

ponta — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:22:37 +0000

Immigration being identified as a method to solve such problems appears to be a dirty word in Japan…the good old politics of fear

In every country, there are pros and cons for immigration as a method to solve such problem, what made you think Japan differed in this regard?

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:45:26 +0000

Okay, everyone after me:
“Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good. When a sperm gets wasted, the Lord gets quite irate!”

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:13:57 +0000

It’s plagiarism if you copy information verbatim and don’t cite your sources. (Do you just copy and paste on most of your comments on this site? …):

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1995158

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/global/chapter3.html (Figure 3.5)

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:53:22 +0000

Don’t stop now, Kabocha! Let’s consider all eggs that are never fertilized as potential lives lost. An angel cries every time a woman gets her period. Let’s all have indiscriminate sex to save potential lives!

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: kabocha5000

kabocha5000 — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:11:08 +0000

Murder? Murder had nothing to do with my comment, but now that you mention it, when a young person is killed people think (maybe not in so many words) “oh, isn’t it too bad that that person died before their time, there was so much they had yet to do and accompish in their life”, for abortion one might think a similar thing except now it’s “oh, isn’t it too bad that that person never got a chance to live.”

Anyway, I think it’s the potential, or at least the perceived potential, for concious life of a fetus that makes abortion so problematic, not the current state of sentience. But, yeah, the fact that there is no measurable consciousness in a fetus does probably give way for abortion to be legal.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:30:12 +0000

But ISN’T. That is the key point. That’s why abortion is legal and murder is not.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:29:24 +0000

But you’re missing the point: the law is to protect innocent people, fine. But why? Because these innocent people don’t want to be killed (of course the law also makes it illegal to kill someone who *wants* to be killed, but that’s another area). But a four-month embryo has no brain (which is what I was referring to when I said “non-existent” in line with your previous reference to sexual organs: the best an embryo has is cells that are scheduled to develop into a braun, like a piece of stone is to be carved into a statue), ergo cannot “want” anything. Nor feel. In short, for early abortions there is no victim beyond a mass of barely distinguished cells.

“…if abortion is killing a person,and the person is innocent and weak, should not he be protected?”
Only if he wants to be….

“self-awareness is an unreasonable condition to be placed on the value of human life.”
Why? Your next statement does not explain this. You simply state they are “worthy of protection” but not why.

Now I think I’m going to march in protest of Crystal Rights….

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: kabocha5000

kabocha5000 — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:07:00 +0000

uh.. wait a minute. In your scenario population growth will slow whether abortion occurred or not. Unless you’re assuming that the aborted child would have compensated for that slowed rate… I guess we’ll never know….

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 05:29:58 +0000

Oh man, I LOVE supposition games!

What if the woman was forced to give birth to all three children, but can’t financially support them all, and none of them end up going on to get a higher education for lack of financing, and they all end up stringing together konbini jobs and irasshaimase’ing at McDonald’s, and in their poverty all three of them decide never to have children of their own? Now her non-abortion is to blame for a declining population.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: James

James — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:54:41 +0000

Irregardless?

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: binbiru

binbiru — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:46:16 +0000

At any rate if the stats I found are accurate then between 1949-2006 over 36 million pregnancies were ended through the process called abortion. Irregardless of ones views on that everyone knows where babies come from, and that when a baby comes out of its mom he or she is kicking and screaming and very much alive. So 36 million times pregnant women in Japan ended the pregnancy before full gestation but how many babies did she deliver and raise in lieu of the pregnancy or cies she ended?

Say a woman has three pregnancies and carries two to full gestation but the third for whatever reason she ends. Now of those two children she will raise say each then goes on to have and raise one child each, then that child goes on to have only one child. Do this over a couple of generations and it is easy to see how the ending of a pregnancy through abortion could contribute to the upside down pyramid of Japans current society.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: kabocha5000

kabocha5000 — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:22:32 +0000

Pulling the plug…

See, the difference between The Braindead and an early-developing embryo is that the embryo has the potential, nay is almost gauranteed, to become sentient.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Joseph Again

Joseph Again — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:59:28 +0000

I was hesitant to submit the argument, that,”If we gradually become a person, and if it is okay to kill somebody without all their systems in place, and to be consistent with this reasoning, then there should be no objection to killing an eight-year old child whose reproductive systems are still immature,” because some individuals do think it is a good idea. That, of course, was not my intention.

it is true that “there is a little bit of difference between immature and non-existent.” I would add that there is a big difference that should not be dismissed-since, if it was proven that a human is “non-existent” in the womb, I would agree that no harm is done. But I disagree, and considering the evidence for proof, I am convinced the embryo is a human.

I agree that “nothing is wrong with killing per se.” Especially if it is done in the process of self-defense or in the interest of protecting the general public. But recall that I submitted abortion to be wrong because “it deliberately kills an innocent human being.”
The purpose of law is to protect people. If law does not achieve this even minimally, it is failing to protect the innocent from the guilty. Then, if abortion is killing a person,and the person is innocent and weak, should not he be protected?
It is true that in human growth, like crystal growth, chemical reactions occur. However, analogies have their limits and obviously, a human is not a crystal,and since a human is not a crystal, he has rights.

Also, self-awareness is an unreasonable condition to be placed on the value of human life. There are developmental disorders that result in a deficit of self-recognition, yet such members of a society are worthy of protection.

By the way, I respect your honesty.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:16:45 +0000

Birth is a huge break. It marks the step between being a dependent and intergral part of another being to being a fully independent organism.

Actually I have been able to think of a few 8-year-olds who might be better off dead. Good idea of yours. Of course there is a little bit of difference between immature and non-existent, but we’ll let that slide.

BTW, why is killing wrong? There is nothing wrong with killing per se. It is only wrong in the sense that it causes harm to others: the person himself, and his loved ones. When the person himself doesn’t even have a brain, he can feel no loss. An embryo, even more than mature (post-natal) humans, is just a biochemical reaction, akin to a crystal growing. Only when sentience arrives does it become morally ambiguous (yes, I’m all for pulling the plug on the braindead as well). No CNS, no awareness, no moral ambiguity. So since the embryo not only does not object, but cannot conceive of objecting, then what is the harm done?

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Joseph Again

Joseph Again — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:34:34 +0000

It is true that much contention exists in whether an embryo is a person because if an embryo is a person, then abortion is wrong, because it would be deliberately killing that innocent human being.
Then, what is an embryo? What is a fetus? What is a teenager, or an adult?
These words-embryo,fetus,teenager,adult-are nouns that come from adjectives. Embryonic human:embryo. Fetal human: fetus. Infantile human:infant. Childish human:child. Teenaged human:human. These are stages of development of the same entity,which is a person.
When does the individual life of any mammalian species begin? When the genetic code is complete. When instead of the haploid ovum and the haploid sperm, you get the diploid embryo. Cells replicate immeasurably, a pattern emerges, and gradually organs develop. Granted,there is nothing like a human brain in the embryo.However, a human embryo only has the potential to be human; a human embryo grows a human brain, and an ape embryo grows an ape brain. So, it is a human embryo even though it does not yet have a brain.
If we gradually become a person, and if it is okay to kill somebody without all their systems in place, and to be consistent with this reasoning, then there should be no objection to killing an eight-year old child whose reproductive systems are still immature.
Then, the embryo must be human-and the process of growth and development does not begin at birth, it begins at conception. Part of this takes places in the ninth month in the womb, and rest occurs in the years outside of the womb. There is no break during this process.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Garrett

Garrett — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:28:59 +0000

The most laughable contention in that article, and the reason anything else it says can be rejected out of hand, is that Japanese companies are desperately seeking full-time employees – that would be news to plenty of contract workers, part-timers, temps, freeters, and job-hunters, not to mention pretty much every economist studying Japan, the MHLW, and, most of all, a great number of employers in Japan. It might not be the mid-to-late ’90s now, but it’s certainly not a seller’s market.

The question of the extent to which abortion reduces population is one that’s tough enough to figure out without one side having decided that it’s the bane of existence and responsible for all population decline.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Catch the Chicken

Catch the Chicken — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:10:08 +0000

Neatly put!

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:29:18 +0000

W is an abortion of intelligence.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:08:25 +0000

The debate is whether is the collection of a few cells that makes up a blastocyst is a “person.” Or even an early embryo. These are not people. If it is wrong to kill them, it’s not the same wrong as killing a fully formed and sentient human. And the Catholic Church would need to worry a lot less about abortion if they allowed contraception.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:01:31 +0000

“It’s not prostitution, at least not in the sense of traditional prostitution.”

Isn’t that a wonderful way to say something and mean the exact opposite?

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:58:45 +0000

Actually it was pro-life thought that led to “W” being born, not the other way around….

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:57:52 +0000

“I actually once had an acquaintance of mine tell me, “What can you prove with science, at your “colleges” and “schools”? Nothing, you can’t prove anything with science or facts, because facts don’t exist.””

Was he a sociologist, or perhaps a philosophy major?

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:40:30 +0000

The argument against abortion is definitely not moronic nor delusional, but it’s also an argument based on morality rooted in religion.

You have a choice to not have an abortion, but when you forcibly remove that choice from others you’re forcing your religious beliefs on them. The separation of politics and religion requires that choice be maintained.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: James

James — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:13:46 +0000

Cloneofsnake:

I made the link nofollow, so it won’t count in the eyes of the Googlebots.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: cloneofsnake

cloneofsnake — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:55:45 +0000

Well said!

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: cloneofsnake

cloneofsnake — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:54:24 +0000

Christians Vs people of Reason is like the PC vs Mac these days, no matter what u say, u just can’t project an image of “cool”. LOL.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: cloneofsnake

cloneofsnake — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:43:34 +0000

Did you write to Google or to the pro life wackos’ site? If the latter, then u should know your efforts were just wasted.

Google News doesn’t use human editors to find / filter “news”, that why people w/ an agenda like these fundamentalists can take advantage of this loop hole & get people to read their bull shit through Google News.

James!!, I suggest you remove that link in your article so you don’t give their site more credit in Google’s eyes.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: binbiru

binbiru — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:34:25 +0000

The article has a point though. While abortion may not be the sole cause of Japan`s rapidly shrinking population it certainly must be considered as a factor, irregardless of ones views on it, when over 36 million babies have been aborted since 1949.
http://www.ipss.go.jp/syoushika/tohkei/Popular/P_Detail2008.asp?fname=T04-21.html&title1=%87W%81D%8Fo%90%B6%81E%89%C6%91%B0%8Cv%89%E6&title2=%95%5C%82S%81%7C21%81%40%90l%8DH%94D%90P%92%86%90%E2%90%94%82%A8%82%E6%82%D1%95s%94D%8E%E8%8Fp%90%94%81F1949%81%602006%94N

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Joseph Again

Joseph Again — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:25:00 +0000

I agree that this may not be the most professional article on the effects of abortion on population,or even as an argument in opposition to abortion-for the purpose of argument is to transfer from ignorance to knowledge,and this article hardly provides such convincing evidence for the case of Japan. However, it is fair to say that such a relation exists-Russia being the better example.
Notwithstanding poor articles like this, I agree that abortion is wrong, and that the institution of abortion internationally is a tragedy-for it is always wrong to deliberately kill an innocent person.
I am Catholic, and it is unfortunate that such Christians leave a negative impression on some individuals, like Karusu-kun. It may be true then, that the “only unanswerable question against Christianity is Christians”-meaning, bad and sad ones. Nevertheless, every Christian-and the case against abortion-should not be dismissed as being moronic or delusional.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Sheriff D

Sheriff D — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:18:45 +0000

Leitmotiv:

Funny!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaai! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai!

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: joseph?

joseph? — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:09:03 +0000

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: doinkies

doinkies — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:24:48 +0000

I don’t recall that particular urban legend being in WaiWai. I’ve only heard it about the Chinese.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Jack Elliot

Jack Elliot — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:36:41 +0000

IF IT’S IN THE NEWS, IT MUST BE TRUE.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Catch the Chicken

Catch the Chicken — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:58:22 +0000

CyberStrikes comments are the usual nonsense about Japan… enjo kosai is not he reason for a declining birth rate.
Women looking for independance is also not the whole answer.
The main reqson is the demands from society to be succesful and happy through mass consumption, much of which is wasted consumption. So therefore women need to work more to buy those expensive goods (shoes, bags et) that get used a few times the disposed. Same for enjo kosai… the kids do it for the brand goods and the appearance of being succesful.

Having kids and a family just `gets in the way` of appearing successful as money and time is diverted from consumption of personal goods to the baby.

So the root cause is American-style consumption, and the pursuit of happiness… as in the constitution.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Get A Job, Son!

Get A Job, Son! — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:50:21 +0000

The real thrust of this article (other than the obvious right-to-life base theme) is… -from authors perspective- “I am a western orthodox christian, and my I am superimposing my values and beliefs on Japan”.

While Japan continues to be neither a ‘western’ thinking country nor christian, this type of writing will always emerge from christian extremists.

The real point of the blog post is that this type of rubbish can be treated as news, which it can, but its independance and balance/bias must be either clearly stated or the news agency (google) lack credibility.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Japan - More Pets than Kids | Engrish Brog

Japan - More Pets than Kids | Engrish Brog — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:39:15 +0000

[...] all the depressing talk about declining birth rates and whole towns dying in Japan (there aren’t enough crematoriums to keep up!), there is one [...]

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: leitmotiv

leitmotiv — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:29:16 +0000

Wasn’t that featured once in WaiWai?

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: leitmotiv

leitmotiv — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:27:55 +0000

I would guess it pointless in this case. Such faux-news organizations as this one usually have American-taliban style bible freaks involved somewhere, though they may obscure that fact on their masthead. This is a tiny make-belive news story that they concocted to try to further their biblical philosophy from their HQ over in Jesusland, USA. The editor may not even be able to point to Japan on a map if asked. If you write them you may as well also ask them about why the fossil record disputes bible scripture on the age of the earth. They would just reply that god put the fossil record in the ground to test the true believers.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: kabocha5000

kabocha5000 — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:05:07 +0000

See, United States? That’s what happens when you give women a choice!

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Milaround

Milaround — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:40:02 +0000

Well said. Thank you.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: sod

sod — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:24:43 +0000

yep you dont pick a fight with us scotsmen!

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Karasu-kun

Karasu-kun — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:35:34 +0000

Does it really surprise you that people whose entire basis for life and “reason” are based on a magic book and a magic corpse would fabricate “facts”? And I don’t say this tongue-in-cheek, voodoo oogie boogie believing morons can have their secret little “everyone’s plotting against us poor christians, when we’re really plotting against everyone else” meetings and believe in whatever they want so long as they keep it to themselves. But when these borderline mentally-ill, delusional, obsessive compulsive people start just out and out lying in public to accomplish their ridiculous goals, it really gets under my skin. Granted they’re morons, and most people know they’re morons and will disregard any (mis)information that these fools give them, but it pisses me off nonetheless. On my college campus a few years back, a woman had two children in suits (presumably her kids) handing out why evolution is wrong and everyone that ever advocated evolution as a science has lied about it or falsified it in some way. When I asked her a specific, eloquently worded, question about the contents of the pamphlet, she began shouting at me, put her hands over the kids’ ears and shuffled away very quickly. If I was in a relationship and tried to lie and threaten to control my partner, people would call that abuse, all most religion is, is doing that on a larger scale. Ironically, they mention “Truth” with a capital T so often, but they’ve never spoken an iota of it. I actually once had an acquaintance of mine tell me, “What can you prove with science, at your “colleges” and “schools”? Nothing, you can’t prove anything with science or facts, because facts don’t exist.” Needless to say I wasn’t an acquaintance of his much longer after that. This article makes me think of that conversation, utterly.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Karasu-kun

Karasu-kun — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:19:00 +0000

You forgot that breast cancer is god punishing women for leaving the kitchen!

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:54:16 +0000

Damn, you mean my Babyburger was a fake? No wonder it didn’t taste quite right….

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: kai

kai — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:51:37 +0000

I think that is the stupidest thing I have ever read. If that was the case, then there would be population declines over the world. That guy is probably pissed off because a Japanese girl turned when he asked her to marry him. If so, smart girl. Idiot!

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: doinkies

doinkies — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:14:52 +0000

You should check Snopes first before posting such things…
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: James

James — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:05:52 +0000

Hey, at least the Japanese are doing something with aborted babies: eating them…

PROCEEED WITH CAUTION!!!!

http://believe-or-not.blogspot.com/2007/08/japanese-eating-dead-babies.html

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: doinkies

doinkies — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:25:04 +0000

What a doink. *rolls eyes* I wonder if he blames abortion for declining populations in other countries too…

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Watchdog

Watchdog — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:10:32 +0000

I’d say abortion is only a factor, however, Cyberstrike makes a good point.

Rate this comment: 0 0

By: Montsan

Montsan — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:45:55 +0000

I am rarely compelled to e-mail personal protests to large corporations as I question their actual effects but such blatant misinformation presented as fact to a gigantic community – most of whom have absolutely no prior knowledge of the matter through which to filter this rubbish – is completely unacceptable.

Strongly worded e-mail powers ACTIVATE!

Rate this comment: 0 0