Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[Little Raven]

If many of the women who got abortions just kept the fetus and let it live they could of just given it away. Life no matter how bad is better then no life.

Given it away to whom?

 

[luiz]

Because I've already gone times and times again into this argument, and I'm tired to repeat again and again and again myself, so I do simplify. And I know that if I go in deep into this, it will ends up in a splitting hair session that will be completely pointless toward the actual debate.
So I make it simple : a person is the combination of a character, memories, the ability to feel, and emotion. I've no need to enter further in this, as an embryo COMPLETELY LACK ALL THIS ALTOGETHER.
So wether or not I make these factors a treshold or if I evaluate the "value" of a human proportionnally to them, is irrelevant, because in any case the embryo has a total score of ZERO in any of these.

If you take that as a definition of humanity, you have to expect debate on the consequences of said definition.
Of course your definition suits perfectly your argument on abortion, but what about other cases? It creates some contradictions as I pointed out, and as such I don't consider it to be truthful.

According to your own reasoning, "work = use of the body" and "pregnancy = use of the body". Well, rape is also using the body. Draw your own conclusion as to why this reasoning is completely stupid, and then it will by itself shows the absurdity of comparing pregnancy with work.

I'll give a hint : work is you using your body voluntarily. Rape is someone else using your body against your will.
Forced labor is someone else make you using your body against your will.
I'll let you find what forced pregnancy is.

I understand perfectly the importance of voluntary. But the thing is pregnancy is the result of a voluntary act, if not the product of rape(pregnancy as a consequence from rape is another matter and much more complicated).

Because it's a word that imply a negative value.
Forcing an immoral act onto someone is negative. A negative word is then in order.

Immoral in your opinion.

In fact, most of the liveable space is actually occupied by human. The rest is space that can be occupied, but isn't easily "liveable", except by draining even more natural ressources.
The food we can produce, can be only by using artificial and polluting means, that are in the end draining the natural ressources and wearing the Earth. As such, they are only temporarily usable, and sooner or later we will either dry out the Earth and die, either reduce the population to a level that is sustainable by the planet (or find space travel and dry out other planets).

That's not true. See my reply to TLC. The essential resources are vast and are not beign depleted at all. We can already get fresh water out of salty water, and there are plenty of renewable and clean energy generation technologies. Once we get fusion working, there will be no virtually limits.

 

[luiz]

No, they aren't. They're mostly wrong, which is not at all the same thing.

The history books are full of false prophets of doom, and it's easy to believe that because our civilization has managed to defeat every obstacle it's come across so far, we will surely triumph over every obstacle we come across in the future.

But look a little deeper, and you'll see that sometimes...the doomsayers are right. Or at least, we assume they were right, because records about doomsayers don't tend to survive the collapse of a civilization.

Yes, our civilization is smart and adaptable. I'm sure the ancient Mayans were too. Like us, they had overcome every obstacle put in their path, and I'm sure, like us, they believed themselves to be invincible. And they were, until around 700 A.D., when something gave them a rude surprise.

Yes, doomsayers are almost always wrong. But don't confuse "almost always" with "always." Unfortunately, every once in a while, they're right.

Sometimes someone predicts a catastrophe, that's right. Like one british politician that right after the Treaty of Versailles said that in 20 years they would fight a new war twice as a bloody.

But then again those predictions are usually based on rational observations and refer to relatavily local catastrophes. For exemple, since the 20's there wre people predicting the fall of the Soviet Union. But that's not doomsaying, that's Economic good sense.

As for the mayans, comparing them to our civilization is a huge stretch. They were never the most advanced civilization on Earth, and due to their reducted numbers and space concentration they were very vulnerable. It's not surprising at all that a chain of civil wars managed to destroy most of their power.

What I actually mean by doomsaying is a global catastrophe, like the population gowing down to a couple of billions or the living standars going back to the Middle-Ages. Or Jesus coming for the thrid time and wiping the impure out. Or aliens invading. And so on. The fact that some civilizations fell and some observers were able to predict it is acceptable.

 

[Mauer]

I would just like to say something to all of you arguing against abortion. You can't make a person believe they are a sinner, as I am and all are, untill they understand what sin actually is. And no I don't mean some hollywood definition. To the unbelieving world sin is a right that you have no right to tell them they can't do. But what is mistaken about sin, unfortunately, is that I am not telling you it is sin. I am telling you that the creator has told us, and put in our minds the knowledge of sin. That little thing called conscience. Try clicking the link in my signature just for a quick test. Don't worry, no brainwashing here, just try it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

How not?

It's you claiming it proves anything - I suggest you first explain how it proves it.

That's not the real core of the non-sustainability argument. All of those doomsayers have a very distinctive political agenda, but I'll leave that to another debate.

1) If the core of the non-sustainability argument isn't that we're using up resources at a non-sustainable rate, was is this core?
2) What are we then to call the argument centering on that we use up resources at a non-unsustainable rate?

My argument rests on the fact that we are not depleting even a fraction of the essential resources, the ones neede to support life.

Sources, please.

Oil is not among those(and by the way if doomsayers were right there would be no oil today).

I did say oil was an essential resource - I brought it up as an example of a resource that's used at a non-sustainable rate but despite this hasn't run out yet.

Explain why there would be no oil today if "doomsayers" were right, BTW.

The ammount of oxygen in the world can support hundreds of times more people. With de-salting(if that's a word) technology we could have access to an endless source of water. Solar energy, if properly applied, could provide electricity for billions of years. The soil could grow many times more food then it currently does, and plenty of rich lands are still empty. Tell me, what exactly is depleated?

No-one's saying anything is depleted.

Arable land is currently being destroyed quicker than new is forming (this could change if global warming got going in earnest). Fish stocks are collapsing pretty much everywhere. Just two examples from the top of my heads.

 

[The Last Conformist]

New Thread for the sustainability debate

Little Raven, if you're reading this, you need clean out your PM box - it's full, so no-one can send you any PMs till you delete some.

 

[luiz]

Edit: Removed to avoid thread-jacking
See the previous post in the Depletion of Resources thread.

 

[zjl56]

Given it away to whom?

foster care

 

[Benderino]

Cause that's always in the best interest of the child (and not to mention that there are too many children and not enough foster parents).

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

foster care

40 million kids in foster care huh?

 

[JollyRoger]

So if we get rid of abortion, we need people to adopt. Would you pro-lifers accept adoption by gays if it meant an end to legalized abortion?

 

[zjl56]

No I wouldn't allow it. And people who say that those 40 million people that could have lived would have strarved. I answer to them that the world produces 3 times the food it needs for everyone to live. The only reason people are dying of starvation is that the food distribution system is not good enough.

 

[Benderino]

Right, but just because you've pointed that out doesn't mean it's going to be solved. Are you going to reform the distribution?

 

[yoshi74]

@luiz

So, the world can hold ten times the number o people than now. Tell me that again when no one on this planat has to die because of hunger or lack of other needed stuff to survive.
Mankind can't prevent that a huge number of their kin live nearly without ANY kind of life standard, and you stand there and cry: "Come in, we can hold ten times the number we have now."
Thats a heavy pipe dream. You think grow can be unlimited. But we're talking about earth, and earth is a closed system. And infinite grow in a closed system brings the system down at some point. Call me doomsayer or what ye wan't. Thats the way, plain and simple.
Just look at your house. Imagine you have to share it with 9 other people and maybe you realize how out of reality your remark was.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Let's not forget that the last one didn't 'wind down'. It ended after I asked a question that no one on the pro-choiceside had the stomach to answer.

EDIT: Here, for the record, is the QUESTION THAT MUST NOT BE ANSWERED:

Tell me, what is the difference between a 'human fetus' and a 'human being' that gives one the right to live, and denies it to the other? Show how this difference means more when a 'human fetus' displays it than when an aged, injured, or very young 'human being' displays it. Explain why your assertion is not the same as age-based discrimination. Explain why this difference which may be permanent in a 'human being', but which is certain to be temporary for a 'human fetus', can be used to legitimately discriminate against the 'human fetus', but the 'human being', even if permanently afflicted with the difference (say a permenently vegetative coma) still has full human rights.

From now on I am going to post this to every abortion thread that opens, until someone comes up with a non-hypocritical answer. In other words, I'm going to post it to EVERY abortion thread that opens.

EDIT: Fine, pro-choice. Same thing either way. Now answer the question.

 

[Stapel]

Let's not forget that the last one didn't 'wind down'. It ended after I asked a question that no one on the pro-abortion side had the stomach to answer.

That can be explained by the simple fact nobody is pro-abortion.

 

[Mise]

The difference is nobody cares about a clump of cells. And I'd like to ask how the pro-choice crowd is any more hypocritical that the pro-life crowd. YOU EAT BABY COWS!!! HOW CAN YOU BE PRO LIFE!!!

 

[shadowdude]

The difference is nobody cares about a clump of cells. And I'd like to ask how the pro-choice crowd is any more hypocritical that the pro-life crowd. YOU EAT BABY COWS!!! HOW CAN YOU BE PRO LIFE!!!

There is a clear distinction between animal and a human.

 

[Mise]

As is the distinction between a clump of cells and a human.

 

[shadowdude]

As is the distinction between a clump of cells and a human.

May I ask when this "clump of cells" becomes human?