Welcome to Gaia! ::

Ratttking
Pro-abortion here. None of the scenarios presented are convincing enough to force me to reproduce should they even become possible. OK, Scotty's gonna beam out the hypothetical fetus and it will be gestated and live happily ever after, possibly with the family of the rapist who put it in me in the first place. No thanks. Some genes just should not be propagated. I have no problem with abortions being forced on those who cannot support children on their own, either hypothetically or actually.


Wait.

Why is it not okay to force people to reproduce but okay to force them to abort? Also, do you support eugenics?
Demireius's avatar

Dangerous Rogue

Pro-choice.

#1. I would support it as an option much like adoption. However, as someone has mentioned before, some genes should simply not be passed on. Schizophrenia, joint issues, and blood issues run in my family (my father, for example, has to be bled out by doctors every month). I suffer from all kinds of awful things. I would not want to make another person suffer in this way, and I should not have been created either.
So...You know, it'd be cool for some people. It would solve the unwanted pregnancy. But it wouldn't solve an unwanted child/life.

#2. Under-population? Eventual human extinction? AWESOME! We're not meant to last forever, and we should not try to force ourselves to. Y'all do what you want, but i'm not going to extend my life beyond its natural course. We scar up our once-wild planet something horrible. Nothing humans have ever created compares to the beauty of untouched nature. And eventually, if humans die out/ become far less populous, nature will begin to heal and reclaim the world humans have marred with ugly concrete and metal buildings and industry.

#3. Genius, eh? That doesn't solve unwanted pregnancy. Now, if you put #1 and #3 together, maybe i'd support that. Heh. Take out the genius, put it in the artificial womb, see what happens. Of course i'd also highly reccommend having adoptive parents all set for 'em at that point. Letting a fetus develop is pointless if nobody wants to care for it. Genius could become evil genius at that point.


And yes, I am insane. Thanks.

Oh, forced sterilization? I wish they would do voluntary ones more often. Been trying to get sterilized for years. Silly doctors, sterilizations make people not have to have abortions or avoid sex for their whole lives.
Hmmm, well. I wouldn't necessarily SUPPORT it being forced (it is a violation of rights and that can get kinda slippery), but I would not protest it. I'd secretly like that it was happening that way but probably feel bad for people who didn't want it.
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
faerystrangeme
Ratttking
Pro-abortion here. None of the scenarios presented are convincing enough to force me to reproduce should they even become possible. OK, Scotty's gonna beam out the hypothetical fetus and it will be gestated and live happily ever after, possibly with the family of the rapist who put it in me in the first place. No thanks. Some genes just should not be propagated. I have no problem with abortions being forced on those who cannot support children on their own, either hypothetically or actually.


What about in the case of a culture whose system keeps a certain percentage of the population in poverty, ie, not qualifying for parenthood?
One of my dearest wishes would be a set of qualifications that must be met before one is allowed to be a parent. Being well above the poverty threshold would certainly be among those conditions.
Olya's avatar

Fashionable Conversationalist

11,900 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Megathread 100
I can see the validity of either stance, so, I think I'll answer to both.

marshmallowcreampie
The world becomes horrifically over-populated. You ever see Soylent Green where people literally sleep on staircases and streets because there is so little living space? And all the trees are cut down and "real" food is crazy expensive? Sort of like that. (except people aren't eating each other... Yet.) Would you support legalizing abortion in that situation?

No. I inherently oppose abortion as a means of population control. People who say "well, world is overpopulated as is" have no ******** concept of what they're saying. And what they're saying is this: "I support racial and socioeconomic cleansing of the population."

People with means, even in the situation that you are describing, will not resort to abortion as a method of economic survival. The ones who will use it are the urban and rural poor, many of which happen to be people of colour.

There is also an implication that abortion should be seen as a means of birth control. Have contraceptives vanished from the face of the earth?


Quote:
A second situation, would you support legalizing abortion if there was enough living space for everyone, but not enough resources? As in, people don't have to sleep on the streets, but there's very little food or clean water.

See above.


Quote:
A third situation, a test reveals the fetus would be born gay. Alternately, a test reveals the kid would be a born a serial killer. (how does the test work? Magic.) Would you support abortion in such cases?

No. The notion that one person deserves life more than another on the basis of who that person may become is repugnant.


Quote:
A false uterus is made. At any stage in the pregnancy, a fetus or embryo may be removed from the woman's uterus and placed into the false one, where it can develop there. Initially the technology was made to help women whose lives were put in danger by the pregnancy, but it becomes cheap and available enough for it to be used in any case where a woman doesn't want to go through pregnancy. She has a non-invasive procedure to put the fetus/embryo in the false uterus, and when it's developed enough as to not need to live in there, it can be put into foster care. The woman doesn't have to go through either pregnancy or motherhood. Would you support making abortion illegal in such a situation?

No. Short of abortion due to medical complications, no! The idea of elective abortion is to terminate life. If a mother wanted the child to live, she could have the said child and put it up for adoption. Elective abortion absolves the mother of the emotional burden where she wonders where her child is and whether that child knows about her. Elective abortion is a procedure where a mother decides that her life will be better if her child dies. That's all there is to it.


Quote:
A second situation, the opposite of the Soylent Green style one: the world is becoming under-populated. The human population has been declining, entire neighborhoods are abandoned and there aren't enough people to work in all the industries. Would you support making abortion illegal in that world?

No. Bulldozer it over and build another Disney Land. Give financial intensives to reproduce. But reproduction is and should be a personal choice.


Quote:
A third situation, a test shows the kid will be born with a genius IQ. They'd have high potential and would do a lot of great things. Would you oppose abortion in such situations?

Again, I'd like to think that we haven't hit a point where we think that one unborn individual deserves life more than another.


Quote:
Think of the Soylent Green situation mentioned above. Now, in that situation, would you start supporting FORCED abortions?

I think it's pretty obvious that the answer is "******** NO!"

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
Fuulie
Ratttking
Pro-abortion here. None of the scenarios presented are convincing enough to force me to reproduce should they even become possible. OK, Scotty's gonna beam out the hypothetical fetus and it will be gestated and live happily ever after, possibly with the family of the rapist who put it in me in the first place. No thanks. Some genes just should not be propagated. I have no problem with abortions being forced on those who cannot support children on their own, either hypothetically or actually.


Wait.

Why is it not okay to force people to reproduce but okay to force them to abort? Also, do you support eugenics?
It's OK because I think there are too many humans; forced reproduction will obviously create more, forced abortion, fewer. I support the births of healthy children to parents who can care for them.
faerystrangeme's avatar

Blessed Browser

8,150 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Invisibility 100
Ratttking
faerystrangeme
Ratttking
Pro-abortion here. None of the scenarios presented are convincing enough to force me to reproduce should they even become possible. OK, Scotty's gonna beam out the hypothetical fetus and it will be gestated and live happily ever after, possibly with the family of the rapist who put it in me in the first place. No thanks. Some genes just should not be propagated. I have no problem with abortions being forced on those who cannot support children on their own, either hypothetically or actually.


What about in the case of a culture whose system keeps a certain percentage of the population in poverty, ie, not qualifying for parenthood?
One of my dearest wishes would be a set of qualifications that must be met before one is allowed to be a parent. Being well above the poverty threshold would certainly be among those conditions.


Right, but what I'm saying is, is it fair to deny parenthood to people who have no choice about being in poverty? For example, consider a banana republic, where working hard and living right don't necessarily lift you out poverty due to a lack of access to education/opportunity, or heavily class-based society where you don't move anywhere if you don't know the right people, and have no chance of getting to know the right people. These poor may be good, moral, hardworking people --yet we should still deny them children simply because they were born into the wrong class?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I cautiously support denying parenthood to certain people, it's just that my qualifying line is set more along a personality/psychological spectrum than one based on money.
Pro-choice.
False uterus use and abortion ban? No.
Population upkeep? Still no. Encourage procreation, don't mandate it.
Forbid abortion of geniuses? No.
marshmallowcreampie's avatar

Sparkly Pirate

16,250 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Citizen 200
faerystrangeme


Right, but what I'm saying is, is it fair to deny parenthood to people who have no choice about being in poverty? For example, consider a banana republic, where working hard and living right don't necessarily lift you out poverty due to a lack of access to education/opportunity, or heavily class-based society where you don't move anywhere if you don't know the right people, and have no chance of getting to know the right people. These poor may be good, moral, hardworking people --yet we should still deny them children simply because they were born into the wrong class?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I cautiously support denying parenthood to certain people, it's just that my qualifying line is set more along a personality/psychological spectrum than one based on money.


There's also the matter of how poverty is defined. People define poverty in different ways, so who would get to decide who is "too poor" to be a parent?
faerystrangeme's avatar

Blessed Browser

8,150 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Invisibility 100
marshmallowcreampie
faerystrangeme


Right, but what I'm saying is, is it fair to deny parenthood to people who have no choice about being in poverty? For example, consider a banana republic, where working hard and living right don't necessarily lift you out poverty due to a lack of access to education/opportunity, or heavily class-based society where you don't move anywhere if you don't know the right people, and have no chance of getting to know the right people. These poor may be good, moral, hardworking people --yet we should still deny them children simply because they were born into the wrong class?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I cautiously support denying parenthood to certain people, it's just that my qualifying line is set more along a personality/psychological spectrum than one based on money.


There's also the matter of how poverty is defined. People define poverty in different ways, so who would get to decide who is "too poor" to be a parent?


That is also true : P I was working off an assumption of poverty something along the lines of 'can't afford to feed/house/clothe the child', at the very least. But even then, I still think poverty is a terrible way of determining who is a capable parent and who isn't. There are lots of children from poor families who grow up great, and lots of children from rich families who end with with personality disorders and other psychological problems.
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
faerystrangeme
Ratttking
faerystrangeme
Ratttking
Pro-abortion here. None of the scenarios presented are convincing enough to force me to reproduce should they even become possible. OK, Scotty's gonna beam out the hypothetical fetus and it will be gestated and live happily ever after, possibly with the family of the rapist who put it in me in the first place. No thanks. Some genes just should not be propagated. I have no problem with abortions being forced on those who cannot support children on their own, either hypothetically or actually.


What about in the case of a culture whose system keeps a certain percentage of the population in poverty, ie, not qualifying for parenthood?
One of my dearest wishes would be a set of qualifications that must be met before one is allowed to be a parent. Being well above the poverty threshold would certainly be among those conditions.


Right, but what I'm saying is, is it fair to deny parenthood to people who have no choice about being in poverty? For example, consider a banana republic, where working hard and living right don't necessarily lift you out poverty due to a lack of access to education/opportunity, or heavily class-based society where you don't move anywhere if you don't know the right people, and have no chance of getting to know the right people. These poor may be good, moral, hardworking people --yet we should still deny them children simply because they were born into the wrong class?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I cautiously support denying parenthood to certain people, it's just that my qualifying line is set more along a personality/psychological spectrum than one based on money.
Does this banana republic deny its citizens the right to leave and settle where they can improve their lives? If not, why do they stay? Why do they wish to have children where they know their lives will be guaranteed hell? A person who does not care what misery a child will be forced to suffer is not a person fit to be a parent, imo.
marshmallowcreampie

To pro-choicers:

A false uterus is made. At any stage in the pregnancy, a fetus or embryo may be removed from the woman's uterus and placed into the false one, where it can develop there. Initially the technology was made to help women whose lives were put in danger by the pregnancy, but it becomes cheap and available enough for it to be used in any case where a woman doesn't want to go through pregnancy. She has a non-invasive procedure to put the fetus/embryo in the false uterus, and when it's developed enough as to not need to live in there, it can be put into foster care. The woman doesn't have to go through either pregnancy or motherhood. Would you support making abortion illegal in such a situation?

A second situation, the opposite of the Soylent Green style one: the world is becoming under-populated. The human population has been declining, entire neighborhoods are abandoned and there aren't enough people to work in all the industries. Would you support making abortion illegal in that world?

A third situation, a test shows the kid will be born with a genius IQ. They'd have high potential and would do a lot of great things. Would you oppose abortion in such situations?

To both:

Think of the Soylent Green situation mentioned above. Now, in that situation, would you start supporting FORCED abortions?


1) No, I don't believe that fetus' or embryo are people. I see no reason to ban abortion simply because it will one day grow into a human. I'd strongly support the false uterus method, but I would still fight for abortion to be legal. Oh, and obviously I'd only see it as a viable solution if both parents could legal separate themselves from the fetus. So no financial or legal responsibilities are forced on them

2) Nope. I think it'd be great if the world were dying out. I'd probably off myself before things got too hard, but I'd rather the human race die than make abortion illegal. What? I hate the human race. What of it?

3) I'd oppose abortion, but I'd never seek to make it illegal

4) Hm... I'm not sure. I'd like to go with yes, but that's a douchebag response, and it goes against the reasons I'll always support legalised abortion... so no, I wouldn't support forced abortion

Edit: Though if there were a non invasive way to make people sterile, and undo it later, I'd support sterilising all children at birth, and possibly maybe letting them have children later on in life depending on the circumstances
faerystrangeme's avatar

Blessed Browser

8,150 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Invisibility 100
Ratttking
Does this banana republic deny its citizens the right to leave and settle where they can improve their lives? If not, why do they stay? Why do they wish to have children where they know their lives will be guaranteed hell? A person who does not care what misery a child will be forced to suffer is not a person fit to be a parent, imo.


.____. Uh, banana republic poor CAN'T up and move, regardless of the laws of their land (and the land they're trying to immigrate to) because they're poor.

Just out of curiosity, how do you value the material vs. the emotional resources of prospective parents relative to each other? (Ie, are they equally important, is one more important than the other?)
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

To pro-choicers
maybe
no
no
marshmallowcreampie

The world becomes horrifically over-populated. You ever see Soylent Green where people literally sleep on staircases and streets because there is so little living space? And all the trees are cut down and "real" food is crazy expensive? Sort of like that. (except people aren't eating each other... Yet.) Would you support legalizing abortion in that situation?

A second situation, would you support legalizing abortion if there was enough living space for everyone, but not enough resources? As in, people don't have to sleep on the streets, but there's very little food or clean water.

A third situation, a test reveals the fetus would be born gay. Alternately, a test reveals the kid would be a born a serial killer. (how does the test work? Magic.) Would you support abortion in such cases?


Situation One: History tells us that rampant overpopulation cannot occur when there isn't enough food to go around so.. this situation isn't possible. Same deal with no trees - there would be no oxygen - we would all be dead.

Situation Two: If there is very little food, water, resources of any kind, I don't think we should be wasting these precious resources for abortions. Also, since in this scenario humans would probably be dropping like flies, babies are probably a good thing. So no to legalization.

Situation Three: I don't see why being gay should determine anything, no it shouldn't be aborted. However assuming this magical test is always accurate and that the child will grow up and 100% be a serial killer, by definition planning and carrying out the murders various innocent people, then yes it should be aborted.

Something I want to add though, as I sit here watching Breaking Dawn, all I can think is how much I hate that everyone wants to FORCE Bella to abort her baby, but even worse is that she literally doesn't care if the thing kills her or not. In her case she totally should have had an abortion. (But should have come to that conclusion herself, not been forced....that stills would have been much worse)

ALSO OMG THE TALKING DOG/WOLVES - GOD THIS MOVIE IS SO TERRIBLE.
faerystrangeme's avatar

Blessed Browser

8,150 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Invisibility 100
Henrika
Situation Two: If there is very little food, water, resources of any kind, I don't think we should be wasting these precious resources for abortions. Also, since in this scenario humans would probably be dropping like flies, babies are probably a good thing. So no to legalization


Uh, if there's a serious shortage of resources, all these babies we aren't aborting are going to die anyways from lack of food/water/etc. Why spend all those resources nursing pregnant women only to have their children die anyways?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games