You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why are you Pro-Choice.
- Thread starter snow
- Start date
Originally posted by Nasor
I am pro choice because I do not believe that someone has the right to unconditional life if they can live only at the expense of someone else's body, as is the case of a fetus and a pregnant woman.
Also the case with babies. Should they be killable?
The problem isn't that the world is overpopulated, it's that people can't manage their resources properly.
We could manage resources properly now only by allowing mass starvation. We are using future resources by not allowing renewable resources to replenish themselves. The world is overpopulated if it cannot maintain its level in the long run.
This is not an argument in for abortion, it's an argument for better resource management.
Why couldn’t abortion be part of the way the resources are managed?
Note also that if this argument were valid it could just as easily be applied to justify the killing of living adults.
No problem. We already kill people in wars for whatever reason. Or we kill them in prison as punishment. We kill the innocent in prison too, because perfect justice is deemed too costly. The public kills for fun and profit.
The slippery slope argument is considered to be a logical fallacy. It is possible to outlaw abortion without restricting other freedoms. There is no way to show that theocratic domination in an inevitable (or even likely) consequence of outlawing abortion.
The slippery slope is a valid argument for abortion. If you take away a choice, other choices are at more risk of being taken away. You use intuition and history for this, not logic. The religious nuts desperately want to control you. If you give them an inch, they will be emboldened and grow in power. It is possible to outlaw abortion without restricting other freedoms, but the risk cannot be taken lightly. All countries are on the path to democracy or dictatorship. There is a reason why the slippery slope is forefront in the mind of every judge.
Originally posted by HarmonyStar
"Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child's proper nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an unspeakable violation of her rights: ..."
— Leonard Peikoff
Then I guess sentencing a woman to rear her child against her will is also an unspeakable violation of her rights?
Originally posted by zanket
Also the case with babies. Should they be killable?
It is possible for babies to survive once they have been born without existing in a parasitic relationship with their mother.
We could manage resources properly now only by allowing mass starvation. We are using future resources by not allowing renewable resources to replenish themselves. The world is overpopulated if it cannot maintain its level in the long run.
This just isn't true. The there is no reason for people to starve in our modern world. Virtually all cases of mass starvation in the past several decades were caused either by massive government incompetence or deliberately for some political/military reason.
No problem. We already kill people in wars for whatever reason.
If you don't have a problem with killing a child because he/she is living in an abusive environment, then I suppose this argument would work for you. The vast majority of people would disagree with you.
Also the case with babies. Should they be killable?
It is possible for babies to survive once they have been born without existing in a parasitic relationship with their mother.
We could manage resources properly now only by allowing mass starvation. We are using future resources by not allowing renewable resources to replenish themselves. The world is overpopulated if it cannot maintain its level in the long run.
This just isn't true. The there is no reason for people to starve in our modern world. Virtually all cases of mass starvation in the past several decades were caused either by massive government incompetence or deliberately for some political/military reason.
No problem. We already kill people in wars for whatever reason.
If you don't have a problem with killing a child because he/she is living in an abusive environment, then I suppose this argument would work for you. The vast majority of people would disagree with you.
Asguard. I'd rather see all the children in orphanages adopted before people have their own child, but I know that would never happen as most people would rather have their own children. One of the problems I see is the restrictions on adoption which leaves children or foster care rather than with a loving parent or parents. One of the major problems in the US which is slowly being changes was that states received their funding on how many children they had in their care instead of how many children it placed into homes.
What amazes me is that to drive a car you need a license, yet to have a baby you don't need to sit any courses or such, pity. Maybe people should be made to get a license before they are allowed to raise children.
What amazes me is that to drive a car you need a license, yet to have a baby you don't need to sit any courses or such, pity. Maybe people should be made to get a license before they are allowed to raise children.
Originally posted by Nasor
It is possible for babies to survive once they have been born without existing in a parasitic relationship with their mother.
Seems an awful fine line between that and a baby that can’t survive on its own.
The there is no reason for people to starve in our modern world.
The reasons are in our near future. The human population is skyrocketing and that spells d-o-o-m.
Virtually all cases of mass starvation in the past several decades were caused either by massive government incompetence or deliberately for some political/military reason.
Doesn’t mean we won’t starve in the next century. The world holds twice as many people now as it did during the Great Famine in China just 40 years ago. At that rate we’ll have 50 trillion (yes, trillion) people by the year 2500. Do you think technology will save us? Abortion might help.
If you don't have a problem with killing a child because he/she is living in an abusive environment, then I suppose this argument would work for you. The vast majority of people would disagree with you.
Then the vast majority would be hypocrites. The examples I gave were of society killing for similarly dubious reasons.
Nebuchadnezzaar
Registered Senior Member
without a choice, i'm a sheep, no thankyou.