We’ve already lucked into a solution to the population boom, the numbers will level off around 10 billion. Given how intractable population control is, we’re very lucky we’ve found this without some dystopian shitshow.

In the developed world we are approaching the opposite problem, we’re currently dependant on immigration to maintain our societies, but as the rest of the world stops growing we’ll have more trouble getting that immigration and won’t have the local young population to care for our elderly.

Given that we should be trying to figure out how to encourage a sustainable population whilst we still have time to do so. If we can choose between 1.9->2.2 children per couple as needed then we’ll be in a healthy position to slowly reduce the population to a comfortable level.

Right now our natural population decline in the developed world is too fast, probably because our society has made being a parent quite an individual burden. Of course, totally moving the costs to a societal model would be a disaster, but presumably there’s a middle ground where people are comfortable keeping the society going at a healthy rate.

That’s exactly the answer given to you above - the line is murky and grey, there is no clear point that everyone agrees is the right point.

In such a circumstance, the right answer is open to interpretation, and the right solution for a society is to accept that the best person to make that decision is the person involved.

If you want my answer, it’s when brain cells develop enough to start looking like a functioning brain (somewhere around 16-20 weeks). Before that it’s just a brain dead mass of cells regardless of how it looks.

Clearly you have a different moment, and that’s fine, but you don’t get to ignore that the issue is open to interpretation. Otoh, I admit that both sides are guilty of trying to railroad a “simple” interpretation as the only right answer, it’s always tempting to force a simple answer and declare the problem solved, it’s harder to let people decide for themselves what the right answer is, but that’s the right thing to do when we as a society cannot reach a consensus, and we certainly don’t seem to have a consensus on this one.

I don’t dispute your point about nurses and housekeeping, but when people talk about underpaid doctors, they’re not talking about the consultants with Teslas, they’re talking about the junior doctors with a mountain of student debt. They may earn more than nurses, but after 7 years of accumulating debt they kind of need it.

Sure, the rich ones whose mummy and daddy paid for it are fine, but becoming a doctor for ordinary people in this country is pretty thankless and rough, so unless we want doctors to just be toffs we do need to offer compensation on the assumption they won’t be rich going in.

Again, not disputing that nurses deserve better too, but there’s no need to disparage other groups to make that point.

That statement is true and explains why we should support replacing FPTP, but doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote tactically. Hating the system is reasonable, but playing the system is necessary whilst it’s in place. Otherwise you’re just weakening support for replacing it.

Note that I don’t mean tactical voting is always the best option, just that it’s not a tool you should discard entirely, at some point your tactical vote could get FPTP replaced, so don’t be too uncompromising.

I got “little miss naughty”. I am a man in my mid 30s, I never do pranks, I don’t go out of my way to cause trouble.

How can it see parts of my soul that I thought were lost?

It’s interesting how progressive the tories become for their target demographic.

I can’t fault you for liking those policies, though I don’t think they’re affordable (in the sense that we do not have the money to treat everyone that well, they only manage it for pensioners by disregarding the needs of practically every other demographic).

So because there’s moral limits to when it would “ever be performed”, there should be no legal limits to when it would ever be performed? Surely by that logic we don’t need laws against murder either, after all, that would be immoral and sometimes you have to kill people in self defence, so murder laws just get in the way.

This coming from a pro choice person, I do think there’s a good justification for allowing later abortions, but as the previous poster said, it’s not helpful to pretend there’s no complexity or that there should be no limits at all.