Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[Akka]

OK, so you equate our humanity to having feelings and intelect. Following that logic, I could say that ******** people who have less feelings and intelect are "less human" then the rest of us. I´m sure you agree with me that that´s a terrible statement.

I've talked about the ability to think, feel and have emotions, not the subtlety of these. Even a ****** has his own character, his own emotions and his own memories

According to your logic, a father should not be forced to work(use his body and mind) to feed a baby. Most people agree he should be forced to work, and that he has responsabilities towards his kid. Just like parents have responsabilities over a foetus.

Here is a good example of purposedly pretending you're dumb in order to pretend you don't see the obvious difference between two fundamentally different cases.
I'm not going to waste efforts to prove the differences, as you perfectly know them and just pretend you don't. I'll only highlight that, according to your logic, working is the same as being raped (use of the body).

And, really, I don't feel I have to counter such a ridiculous statement.

Insulting doesn´t add anything to your argument.

It's not an insult, it's a simple constatation that comes after witnessing countless abortion threads. Saying a backward fundie is a backward fundie is not insulting the person, it's only stating his situation. He's the one insulting himself by staying in this situation and shutting his mind to the obvious.

Earth can easily support 10 times our current population.

No.
Earth can support at best 11 milliards people, and the "good" number (ie : one that doesn't deplete the ressources) is about 1 or 2 milliards.

 

[Mise]

IMO, if you're not a vegan, you have no right to claim to be "pro life". It's such a gross hypocrisy to argue for the rights of a foetus, whilst eating a dead calf.

The article covered it - yes it is certainly possible. As I recall they had figured out that roughly three-quarters of children followed their parents' ideology with regard to abortion one way or the other.

In Sweden, at least, anti-abortion ranks have thinned since abortion was legalized.

At least this shows it could go either way. I'm hopefully optimistic.

Oh, and I agree with Akka in so much as the shameful use of hyperbole by the anti-abortion crowd does as much for their arguement as insulting someone.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Two new points:
One: Contraceptives work normally at 98 %. So there's 2 % of failure. Let's say a couple has sex 3 times a week - that means that the woman is (statistically) pregnant about three times a year - and she didn't do anything wrong. Do I have to say anything more?

If a woman has sex 100 times a year (rough average) and each time using protection, considering protection is only 98% effective then that woman would statistically have unprotected sex twice a year. Also considering only about 2% of all unprotected intercourses produce a baby (that's one in 50) it means the woman will have a 50-50 chance of producing a baby after 25 years. That's one baby in 2500 tries, with a 50% margin for error.

Just nit-picking

 

[luiz]

I've talked about the ability to think, feel and have emotions, not the subtlety of these. Even a ****** has his own character, his own emotions and his own memories

So you´re beign illogical and axiomatic.
You say that thinking and having emotions are a pre-requisite for humanity, but you don´t accept that the ammount of those abilities affect our humanity. That makes no sense.

Here is a good example of purposedly pretending you're dumb in order to pretend you don't see the obvious difference between two fundamentally different cases.
I'm not going to waste efforts to prove the differences, as you perfectly know them and just pretend you don't. I'll only highlight that, according to your logic, working is the same as being raped (use of the body).

There are many ways to use the body and the mind. Working is indeed one of them. To support a baby a father must use his body and his mind, and you agree that it´s within his responsabilities.

Rape does not equate to work, and neither does pregnancy equates to rape, even if both are uses of the body.

And, really, I don't feel I have to counter such a ridiculous statement.

It was not ridiculous, you just don´t want to understand it.

It's not an insult, it's a simple constatation that comes after witnessing countless abortion threads. Saying a backward fundie is a backward fundie is not insulting the person, it's only stating his situation. He's the one insulting himself by staying in this situation and shutting his mind to the obvious.

"Backwards" is the part when there is disagreement. Nobody accepts that title.

No.
Earth can support at best 11 milliards people, and the "good" number (ie : one that doesn't deplete the ressources) is about 1 or 2 milliards.

English is not my first language and I have no idea of what a milliard is.
What I do know is that we can produce enough food, with our current technology, to feed many times our current population. I also know that only a fraction of the liveable space is beign occupied by humans.

 

[The Last Conformist]

A "milliard" is what to Americans is known as a "billion" - the number 10^9. Akka's use here reflects badly on his English, not yours, if anyone's.

 

[luiz]

Any sources for that?

I´ll try to find one.

I could come up with ones saying the the sustainable human population is a tenth of the present ...

To which I would reply that living standards have never beign higher, and are rising.

 

[The Last Conformist]

To which I would reply that living standards have never beign higher, and are rising.

That would be a fairly stupid reply.

I could increase my living standard by doubling my expenditures. That doesn't say anything about whether that level of expenditure would be sustainable, nor, indeed, anything about whether my present level is.

 

[cgannon64]

Abortion is the silliest debate ever because both sides can't even agree if something is human or not. Everyone should just go home.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

It is still the pro-life camp's job to prove the statement: "A foetus is a person". So far all the arguments brought for have been dutifully repelled.

 

[IglooDame]

Abortion is the silliest debate ever because both sides can't even agree if something is human or not. Everyone should just go home.

Unfortunately, to one side it is preventing the systematic murder of babies, and to the other side it is a matter of government intrusion into what a woman can do with her own body, and there is no philosophical middle ground, either the government makes killing babies illegal or it is none of the government's business.

 

[luiz]

That would be a fairly stupid reply.

I could increase my living standard by doubling my expenditures. That doesn't say anything about whether that level of expenditure would be sustainable, nor, indeed, anything about whether my present level is.

Fact: Living standards in the vast majority of countries, for the vast majority of people, are higher then ever.

Fact: Living standards in the vast majority of countries, for the vast majority of people, are continuing to rise, and nothing suggests that they are going down in the future.

How can those 2 facts not exclude the possibility of the current levels not beign susteinable?
The fact that the Industrial Revolution and the population explosion happened more then 200 years ago and since then we´re only getting better off pretty much proves that the Earth can support increasing populations for a long time.

Doomsayers are always wrong.

 

[cgannon64]

Exactly. I don't understand how the government said "Well, a human starts...here." Any line is arbitrary.

It reminds me of an Onion article...

"Very Tiny Man Found in Woman's Vagina. Refuses Questioning."



Aphex: How is it up to us to prove what a human is? You can't "prove" what a human is, as there is no definitive line drawn! Is the definition of a human written down anywhere? Is it obvious?

 

[Mise]

Exactly. I don't understand how the government said "Well, a human starts...here." Any line is arbitrary.

It reminds me of an Onion article...

"Very Tiny Man Found in Woman's Vagina. Refuses Questioning."



Aphex: How is it up to us to prove what a human is? You can't "prove" what a human is, as there is no definitive line drawn! Is the definition of a human written down anywhere? Is it obvious?

Which implies that, since there is no line we can draw in absolute terms, that each individual must draw their own line.

 

[cgannon64]

Yep. And, in things like that, its pretty hard for the government to do something.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@cgannon

No, not what a human IS, but why "A foetus is a person and therefore can be murdered". That is a statement and needs arguments to support itself.

Edit: On the other hand, Mise's reply is better.

 

[cgannon64]

To me, it is obvious that if you have human DNA and the correct amount of chromosones (people with Down's syndrome being the exception, of course), you are a human.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Fact: Living standards in the vast majority of countries, for the vast majority of people, are higher then ever.

Fact: Living standards in the vast majority of countries, for the vast majority of people, are continuing to rise, and nothing suggests that they are going down in the future.

How can those 2 facts not exclude the possibility of the current levels not beign susteinable?

How can anyone believe they do?

The fact that the Industrial Revolution and the population explosion happened more then 200 years ago and since then we´re only getting better off pretty much proves that the Earth can support increasing populations for a long time.

How?

The core of the non-sustainability argument is that there are resources that we, above some population number, use up faster than they get replaced. That we've not seen a collapse yet means that either we're still below that level, or we're above, but have not yet worked thru the pre-existing buffer.

Look at oil - by any estimate we're using it up much faster than it is replaced, but at current consumption, it will last for decades, possibly centuries yet. Your argument pretty much adds up to that since the oil fields have not run dry yet, they never will.

 

[The Last Conformist]

To me, it is obvious that if you have human DNA and the correct amount of chromosones (people with Down's syndrome being the exception, of course), you are a human.

That would seem to include chopped off ears.

 

[zjl56]

Nice guys six pages.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Six pages? I take it you didn't see the previous abortion thread?