Johnny Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 It went mostly ignored last time, but I still think it's a valid point so I'll say it again: In a world where we are already looking on a humanity where there are just too many of us, where starvation and lack of space are real issues, is it not more humane to let people who don't want children abort, than to force even more of us onto this small planet? Overpopulation is a real issue. EDIT This is kind of related to what yant and dean is discussing above. No, abortion would not singlehandedly solve the starvation problems, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't hurt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Again, I'm pro-life, but to be fair there are other (and far more practical) ways of controlling the population than abortion. Simply making contraceptives freely available is hugely effective (also dramatically reduces abortions, incidentally). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Oh definitely, Ethan, contraceptives should be the first line of defense against unwanted pregnancies. Ideally, we would not need to abort a single feature. Unfortunately, shit happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) You think that condoms would fix the starvation problems in africa? Fix? Doubtful. But simple math tells you that if there were fewer mouths to feed, there would be more food per person. You're also making a claim to have some quantification for "psychological harm" as if the baby is going to be nothing but a source of pain for the victim. This is not always the case. No life is being lost by keeping a rape baby alive unless your arguing that it would completely psychologically destroy a person even if given up for adoption. I think there are many mistakes that you are making here. One, you're underestimating the financial and time burden that a baby represents. Even a baby that you love dearly costs a lot of money and a lot of work to raise. You are making the parent's life significantly, measurably harder, and this is undeniable. To add this burden to someone who doesn't even want a child is cruel, and ultimately stupid, because they will likely not take good care of the child. I've known people who didn't want to be parents, and ended up being good mothers/fathers, but they are the minority. Usually, when you don't want a child, you don't love a child, you in fact would like to not have that child be born, you tend to be a very bad parent, and your child suffers a great deal because of it. It feels like much of the time pro-lifers consider the act of birth so sacred that it must be carried out even if it means a lifetime of misery for everyone involved, which is pretty disgusting to me. I'm for as little suffering for as few people as possible, no arbitrary religious restrictions or superstitions getting in the way of that. I want children to be raised by people who want them. And again, you point to the foster system, and again I say "it's a nice dream but it doesn't work". If you want to argue foster reform, if you want to put the tax money that's necessary to try and fix the adoption system, and safe surrendering, and all that, that's wonderful. Right now, you (and by you I mean the pro-life right) are spending a lot of money to take a mother's right to an abortion away, without fixing any of the dozens of problems that that causes. It seems deeply irresponsible to me for you guys to push this so hard, without working on the support structures that would be necessary were you to actually succeed. Edited February 2, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Just want everyone to know that Ireland is then only place in Europe where its illegal to get an abortion, no matter what stage of pregnancy you are at, no matter whether or not the woman have been raped, whether she has severe mental issues, whether or not the fetus is severely defected, you can't. Because the catholic church has too much damn power in Ireland. Anyway...arguing that its murder is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in my life. I'm sorry, murder is when someone kills another person because they want that person dead. A woman who has been raped does not go into an abortion clinic thinking 'I've got to kill this baby', its an incredibly difficult decision they and only they themselves should be able to make. Its really really easy Yant, for you to say they should just put the baby up for adoption, your not the one who's going to be carrying a rapists child for 9 months, christ.....there's so so much more to it than just saying 'oh they should put the child up for adoption.' 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 My plan: create a retrovirus that alters everyone's genetic code so they are incapable of conceiving a child without taking special supplements. Provide those supplements for free to anyone who wants them, no questions asked. It shouldn't have to be said, but just in case: I'm not serious about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Alternate plan: invent artificial wombs within which to transplant and gestate unwanted babies, then distribute them to couples wanting to adopt. Again, not serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Alternate plan: invent artificial wombs within which to transplant and gestate unwanted babies, then distribute them to couples wanting to adopt. Again, not serious. ......that's just crazy enough to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Alternate plan: Sterilize everyone, with hormone treatments to reduce or eliminate sexual desire, and the only method of reproduction to be expensive genetic engineering. Hahaha, no, that's too expensive. If it wasn't, though... I mean, if it was affordable... hmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 @Dean: I didn't think Gerbil was being serious. You think that condoms would fix the starvation problems in africa? You're also making a claim to have some quantification for "psychological harm" as if the baby is going to be nothing but a source of pain for the victim. This is not always the case. No life is being lost by keeping a rape baby alive unless your arguing that it would completely psychologically destroy a person even if given up for adoption. Also, your final statment "You oppose abortion because you are told to." You're writing me off as a religious zealot. Just know that my beliefs are mine by choice though. My choice. I think condoms would help retard the spread of AIDs in Africa. And thus the death and suffering that comes with that. Condoms also decrease birth rate, decreasing population, and decreasing the strain on limited supplies. Is it really a black and white issue with you on life or no life? Doesn't matter if the baby is an unwanted symbol of a huge emotional trauma, as long as it's alive and the mother is alive too. Let's not give any actual shits about the actual people involved and their well being, as long as they have the child that is forced upon them. What a wonderful and caring outlook. Makes me warm and fuzzy inside. So you're okay to have your choice to believe in whatever book you want to, but a woman shouldn't have the choice to live the life she wants? You're free to read whatever books you want, I like a bit of Discworld myself, but no one has the right to impose those beliefs upon others. As Excel has stated it's not as simple as "just throw it in the meat grinder of the foster care system", the mothers still have to carry the baby to term, with all the physical, mental and economical strain that that brings (in case you're unaware pregnancies can also be lethal. Woot, two deaths for the price of one!). It's unthinking and uncaring. Your position takes no interest in the well being of the parents or children, just that the baby be born because..well cos it should be because the bible says so. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Alternate plan: Combine Suppression Field I am completely serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Alternate plan: kill all the darkies. No, seriously. I mean it. I really do Ah, you got me. Only joking 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 What did the suppression field actually do? How did it prevent people from having sex? Or did it just prevent reproduction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 It prevented sexual drive. It's why you actually went to go kill the combine instead of just boning Alyx when you got to Black Mesa East. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 The suppression field's main effects are to bring the human birth rate down to zero by prohibiting "certain protein chains important to the process of embryonic development." - The wiki 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I think it prevented reproduction. It's hard to imagine how an energy field could prevent sex, you know? It's just a form of physical interaction. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) @Dean: Oh okay. That ties up the biggest plot hole in that game... *Edit* - damnit, Jack got in there with "facts" before I could post Edited February 2, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 To drag up something a few pages back that I didn't have the time/energy to respond to at the time. Sorry All right, then. How about allowing same-sex partners to adopt, or more specifically, making it so that adoption clinics cannot discriminate based on orientation? I tell you what, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. It's a two front thing for me personally. I mean ideally and religiously I believe that it's best for kids to be in a family with a mother and a father. Pragmatically it might be better for a kid to be in a gay household than in an orphanage. It's arguing ideals vs pragmatism. Ideally I wish every child could have a loving father and mother. I believe the genders of the parents to be one of the least crucial factors possible when considering how good a parent someone would be. My parents are straight, but I didn't exactly grow up in a wonder home. I'm not saying it was terrible, but I'm saying it's a roll of the die either way and the gender and sexuality isn't too likely to be an important factor. I'm sure everyone has seen this video before, but I feel it still holds the power it did when I first watched it: 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 My plan: create a retrovirus that alters everyone's genetic code so they are incapable of conceiving a child without taking special supplements. Provide those supplements for free to anyone who wants them, no questions asked. It shouldn't have to be said, but just in case: I'm not serious about that. Fuck that, I'm going to Madagascar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I want children to be raised by people who want them. And again, you point to the foster system, and again I say "it's a nice dream but it doesn't work". If you want to argue foster reform, if you want to put the tax money that's necessary to try and fix the adoption system, and safe surrendering, and all that, that's wonderful. Right now, you (and by you I mean the pro-life right) are spending a lot of money to take a mother's right to an abortion away, without fixing any of the dozens of problems that that causes. It seems deeply irresponsible to me for you guys to push this so hard, without working on the support structures that would be necessary were you to actually succeed. As an aside, it seems like if you were able to adopt more children out of foster care and into homes it would cost the state less money not more. It seems like reform would actually lower the costs of foster care. That's kind of a knee jerk reaction but I could be wrong. Edited February 3, 2012 by Yantelope V2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMW Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Oh, and we're seriously downvoting? That's just silly. Hear hear! I've been trying to restore the karmic balance, up and down-voting posts I otherwise would have left untouched just to try and cancel out what I believe to be unwarranted votes. *Edit* - Why can't everyone acknowledge that it boils down to what aspect of a person or life you value, which is an inherently philosophical question and therefore has neither a correct nor incorrect answer? Good idea! I just downvoted this post because it was at a positive 2 imbalance. I am moving us closer to balance in the force. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I want children to be raised by people who want them. And again, you point to the foster system, and again I say "it's a nice dream but it doesn't work". If you want to argue foster reform, if you want to put the tax money that's necessary to try and fix the adoption system, and safe surrendering, and all that, that's wonderful. Right now, you (and by you I mean the pro-life right) are spending a lot of money to take a mother's right to an abortion away, without fixing any of the dozens of problems that that causes. It seems deeply irresponsible to me for you guys to push this so hard, without working on the support structures that would be necessary were you to actually succeed. As an aside, it seems like if you were able to adopt more children out of foster care and into homes it would cost the state less money not more. It seems like reform would actually lower the costs of foster care. That's kind of a knee jerk reaction but I could be wrong. Well, I think it would be necessary to spend more money making sure that foster parents are qualified and properly motivated to take care of the kids- there are foster parents who simply do it for the money, and abuse (majorly or minorly) their foster children. It's an unfortunate truth, and it's hard to avoid. It would take more careful, and more expensive, monitoring of foster families. In addition, making it properly worth people's time financially would help attract more middle class as opposed to lower class homes. In ways, it would cost less money, but in a lot of other ways it would cost more. It is, of course, a complicated issue I don't expect to solve on this forum particularly. Edited February 3, 2012 by SixTwoSixFour 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/cancer-group-backs-down-on-cutting-off-planned-parenthood/?hp Well, well, look who's coming crawling back to daddy! All the same, it's great news that they're going to continue supporting Planned Parenthood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Why can't everyone acknowledge that it boils down to what aspect of a person or life you value, which is an inherently philosophical question and therefore has neither a correct nor incorrect answer? Can't agree with this more. The reason this is such a hard question is it depends when you think "life" begins. We all agree it's not okay to kill a born baby, but at what point is it no longer up to the mother whether the life growing inside her lives or dies? My personal belief is that since it's biologically a totally unique individual the combination of whose genes will never again exist, it's not okay to simply terminate it. I see where the difference in opinion comes about though, especially since it's growing inside a mother and the issue is entangled with her civil liberties--where does her body end & the baby begin? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.