SCOTUS Draft Leak

Yes, absolutely. The reason filial infanticide/cannibalism frequently occurs is that animals are under environmental stress (not in a position to raise their offspring!) or there are defects in the offspring that will hinder their survival. The idea is that they are not ready for children in a way that would properly pass on their genes, so they kill and eat their children to recoup energy and try again later when they are in a better situation. It's the exact same thing as the "inconvenient" argument just way more brutal by our standards.

Edit: I should specify maternal filial infanticide/cannibalism. It happens quite a bit by paternal means too, but that gets into different reasons evolutionarily

 

No, Gene, animals eat their young due to nutritional deficiency ….period. This is why an otherwise healthy, happy, and well cared for dog eats it’s young. This is very common. They have no concept of defects of the young or anything else. Touching a nestling bird will not cause the parents to abandon it either. This is all crap many have heard and believe because they don’t bother to look at the facts. If your pet eats it’s own feces, they most likely have a kidney disease. Quit reading Facebook, twitter, and I Reddit on Facebook and twitter to get your abortion and nature narrative. Obviously, the ministry of truth is not working.

 

They're not healthy or well cared for if they have a nutritional deficiency to make up for and that's the only option...

Think about "nutritional deficiency"

If the ultimate goal of evolution is to pass on genetic material, why is making up for nutritional deficiency on a personal level more important than preserving the already born offspring? The cost-benefit analysis shows that if they can't raise their offspring to be self-sufficient, their genetic material is not passed on anyway. Ergo, when environmental stressors like nutritional deficiency happen, it is evolutionarily advantageous to stop raising kids, recoup resources, and try again later when hopefully they won't be nutritionally deficient.

If you really want to take this to humans, ~75% of abortions in your metric were due to being unable to care for a baby (resource deficient). Why not try addressing why we have a society that makes it so difficult to raise a child?

 

The resource deficiencies humans contend with rarely have anything at all to do with the argument you make.

Most humans who claim an inability to raise kids due to shortness of funds or time, are short of funds or time because of their indulgences, not because of a lack of nutrients for their young.

Animals don't drink, smoke, do drugs, go clubbing, and aren't addicted to shopping or gambling. Humans make choices . . . conscious choices, which steer their decisions to abort selfishly . . . not because the can't raise the child, but because they won't raise the child.

 

The shortages are analogous, not literal. Many people don't want children until they have a stable job that they can support a family on and a house. You can't quit a vice and make up for all that. It's the "avocado toast" argument, and it cruelly suggests the poors deserve no comforts or they're not really poor. It's deceptive because you can't personal finance your way out of the pitfalls set up by our economy. I don't know if you've seen the housing market lately but:



There's also the classic "I don't qualify for a mortgage, of $900/month, but I have to pay $1500/month in rent" cycle.

After that, it's become impossible to support a family on a single income, so you must have both parents work. Paradoxically, this makes things worse because we do nothing to assist with childcare and costs of childcare are insane.

What we're maybe not talking about here and should be, the health of the economy is going to nosedive in my lifetime because millennials aren't reproducing fast enough to replace the worlforce. There's 2 ways to go about fixing this, actually make it tenable to have children by raising standards of living and reassuring new parents of their safety, or the Republican way of banning access to methods of stopping pregnancy and forcing the workforce to replace itself consequences be damned.

 

I am looking at my social security statement. I had a daughter in 1976 and joined the Army to support her. My annual earnings were;
1976 - $4442.00
1977 - $5016.00
1978 - $5459.00
I could go on, but you get the idea. In my backyard when momma bird says it is time, she boots the baby bird out of the nest to fend for itself..... It took two incomes to make it work in 1977 just like today. You just make it work. This generation has got to rid themselves of the mindset that they have to be helped when things are tough. There comes a time when momma & daddy are gone, or more appropriately when the Fed finally buttons up and says, "no more". I am so damn tired of this victim mentality that permeates society today..... "Sit tight and wait for your parents to die"..... Is it any wonder that we are in the place we are in with self centered thinking like that? And to brag about it too? Good lord.

 

That quote wasn't meant to be an endorsement of the current system, just a take on how dystopian our society is. I wouldn't by any means call it bragging.

I and many others my age are not having children until we're stable, housed, and assured of the future. Period.

That's terrible for the future of the country, but it's bringing it on itself by not taking care of its citizens.

 

I hope her parents leave their wealth to the local animal shelter. She certainly doesn't deserve it....... When did it become fashionable for a country to take care of it's citizens? And why on earth would any citizens want to be "taken care of"?

 

Because we pay taxes and live in a society? That's the whole point. Why would you not want a society that takes care of its people? Go live off the grid if you don't want to be part of it.

 

I pay taxes to have schools, fire departments, nice roads and police.... I don't pay taxes to be taken care of. Not until I am too old to do so for myself anyway..... Seems we have lost the meaning of freedom here lately.

 

Why not teach your kids yourself, I don't have kids so I why should I pay for your kids to be taken care of and educated? Why not take responsibility for fires you probably started and put them out yourself, why should I have to pay to put out your fire? Why not just walk, I don't own a car so why should I pay for your roads? I hyperbolize for effect, but do you see how we already have our taxes taking care of each other?

The truth is I do want you to have all those things and more essentials, it just takes the slightest bit of human empathy to want to support something one might not actually use themselves. Also, one needs to fundamentally understand that the purpose of life is not to labor until death and generate capital for an imaginary game called the economy.

Someone working multiple jobs to make sure a child has their needs met at the cost of never being able to spend time with or meaningfully bond with that child isn't a story of individual heroism, it's a tragedy and an indictment of a broken society.

 

I wonder who the founding fathers expected would take care of them?.... You make valid points but I can't stop going back to the earlier posts of the young women espousing incredibly self centered posts that have no more meaning for society other than, "what's in it for me".... Doing what is necessary to take care of oneself is what true freedom is. When your parents take care of you, you are bound to abide by their desires. When the fed takes care of me, I am bound to theirs and that isn't freedom. Not to me.... Fact is, we are printing cash at a record pace so the fed can continue to make young people believe they are being taken care of. You are astute enough to know what that does to the buying power of the dollar in your pocket. Forty-five years ago I was able to make a family work on $5000.00 a year. Just imagine what that will look like forty years from now. As long as we print the cash it will continue to lose buying power. So is it really worth the long term impact? I fear that your generation may absolutely have to work until you die in order to realize the perks you expect to have today.

 

Actually. you're so damn obnoxious and childish, I literally read next to none of your posts. I think I'll return to that practice.

 

If @JoeNation 's penchant for convincing others to borrow to the hilt to get useless college educations and then bail on repayment of the loans is any indicator, I'm guessing we all did.

 

What a stupid assumption. Typical.

 

Lacking the facts, a perfectly logical assumption . . .

Then again, no one ever accused you of thinking logic was anything other than stupid.

.​

 

It is no coincidence that the dumbest people you run across are also anti-education.

 

I happen to love education, however, there's a huge difference between meaningful education and wasted education, but you don't seem to differentiate between the two. And why? . . . because even if the education is wasted, it still lines your pockets and those of your cohort.

 

Great post. I’m sure you saw the irony of JN calling me obnoxious and childish. If Joe Biden laughed as hard as I did, he would have soiled his depends. JN must have never been told “if you can’t take it don’t dish it out”.

I live by the motto due unto others as you would have them do unto you. Conversely, I will (on case by case basis) do unto others as they have done unto me.

 

I think you may be missing what nutritional deficiency encompasses. In my reference I was referring to certified USDA domestic canine breeders. These breeders have on staff, or contracted, Veterinarians that do routine health checks. Most times the nutritional deficiencies are vitamin or mineral. Those found deficient are given supplements but some are unable to replenish these deficiencies at a sufficient rate during gestation. This is variable among breeds and individuals. So the inference that they are not well care for therefore they are nutritionally deficient is not accurate.