Development could certainly allievate the 3rd problem, but then it would just leave the first two. I guess you could say development would more accurately show intelligence rates. Development doesn't make the population smarter, it just gives them more ability and time to pursue 'intelligence' interests, like school or music.

Given that brain development is affected by environmental influences such as pollution (I'm sometimes tempted to suggest that leaded gasoline might have been partially responsible for the cultural climate in the 1950s and the growth of the religious right later on), nutrition, probably various diseases, and the presence or absence adequate stimulation (notably, in childhood there are many skills, such as language and I believe reading, which are readily acquired within a narrow window of opportunity and much harder to learn later on), and so forth, the improvements in living conditions that accompany a developed country with a first world standard of living, welfare policies, and public safety regulations might well increase the intelligence of a population.

Also, I would like to register my amusement at:

YES, BECAUSE CONTRARY TO EVERYTHING ALL DOCTOROS SAY, THEY ARE PEOPLE

Oh yes, because doctoros (love the Latin feel) know nothing about medicine.

I agree with many of the people who talked about the woman's right to abort, but I think that the measures suggested by The Vicar, like

introduce mandatory sterilization after two live births.

is not something I see in a good light. I certainly don't want it to come down to something like the Chinese policy or over-population, but that's what it seems like.

I'm not anti-death penalty; I just think it's wrongly applied. I think any crime which involves the loss of someone's life or over ten thousand dollars in money or goods should automatically receive capital punishment, one one condition: the prosecution would have to prove it was premeditated.

Well, I am anti-death penalty. I don't see why we have to resort to killing people to keep things in control. That there's no afterlife just makes it worse. Why take away someone's only chance at life? I think it makes more sense to have a life in prison, without chance of parole policy.

Across what people consider to be different races, the average intelligence does not differ significiantly if that's what that meant. We all area members of the same species, but within our species there is a wide degree of differing intelligences. Like any other trait that can be passed genetically, there's a mean out from which the scores deviate in either a positive or negative direction. I know using graduation from highschool/college and rough grades aren't the most accurate way I have to measure intelligence at my disposal currently, but it's the best I can do right now. When it comes to women who don't complete high school, women who do, women who don't complete college, and women who do, and women who complete grad school, and those who don't, we can see their relative rate of birth slowly decress as it goes up the list. Last time I saw stats on the issue, it was that women who did not finish high school were having on average twice as many children as those who go to college. Since I think it's a safe bet that in the US (where poverty isn't as big a problem as it is the third world), few of those women did not graduate high school did so for reasons that weren't needing to work to support their family. So I think I can say the average intelligence of those who didn't graduate is lower, versus the average intelligence of those who did. How much that of that differing occurs in which areas of intelligence I can't say for certain; what I can say is there is, right now, a selection towards lower overall intelligence. If I can find more research on the topic I'll put it here.

BUT it doesn't matter, by attributing 3rd world problems to #3, you've made my point. Development will alleviate those conditions. It has, and is, in every 1st world and developing country - China, India, Korea, Southern Europe, etc.

Development could certainly allievate the 3rd problem, but then it would just leave the first two. I guess you could say development would more accurately show intelligence rates. Development doesn't make the population smarter, it just gives them more ability and time to pursue 'intelligence' interests, like school or music.

OK, more to follow. Haven't gotten to the abortion links, yet. Just wanted to look at that quickly.

What does this pharmaceutical option do for the dire rusty-hanger scenarios? Does it alleviate any of the concerns about "back-alley" abortions in your opinion? Remember, technology is always progressing.
For lack of time, I can't check out the links right now. So, if you've already answered this, I apologize. I will look later.

(Adam, feel free to merge the last few posts if you prefer. x.x)

We had malaria in Africa virtually beat, until Carson, "The mother of environmentalism" pushed her unfounded claims that it caused cancer to the point that it was outlawed.

Here's a rather convenient hub site, since I don't have time due to work pressures to address this particular claim at length. The little "#"s in each square are the relevant links.

RU-486 and better abortion pills will render abortion as casual an act as taking a vitamin.

Is there any actual evidence that, in countries where it is available, pharmaceutical abortion leads to this kind of attitude? And do you have any conception (no pun intended) whatsoever of the magnitude of physiological changes involved in a pregnancy even in the early weeks? Somehow, given the hormonal fluctuations involved, I can't imagine any sane woman approaching pregnancy and abortion in a casual fashion, regardless of the physical mechanism. And what kind of parent will an insane one make?

I'm not even sure why it's not already legal in the US.

Because our present administration is riddled with right-wing nutjobs?