Welcome to Gaia! ::

Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
faerystrangeme
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?)
Wrong. My town has tons of refugees from shitholes in the CAS and Africa. Some of them walked here, although obviously it was not the Africans. Ever hear about the Cuban fellow who turned a '58 Ford into an amphibious vehicle and drove to the US?

Do you mean do I care if one parent was poor before they met their wealthier partner? No, I do not. If it is a sugar daddy/mama relationship, I'ma giggle at them like everyone else does. If it's love for both of them, I congratulate them. I also think I misinterpreted your question, so here is another answer:

Being wealthy is not the only criterion for being a good parent, but a child growing up with an uncaring parent in wealthy circumstances will still likely have it better than a child in poor circumstances with an uncaring parent. A caring prospective parent who is too poor to care for a child anyway is a moot point. Ideally, there will be no such thing as poverty and all children will be wanted, healthy, and well-cared-for, but I'm not optimistic enough to consider that as even a possibility for the human race as it stands.
faerystrangeme
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?
How do you think we managed to not die out during historical famines and plagues? Only a few centuries ago women would have like 12-15 pregnancies each, though something like only 1 in 3 babies grew past infancy, and only 1 in 5 of those children grew to adulthood. For this reason, parents purposefully did not become emotionally attached to their children until they were 8-12 years old.



Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww I just watched Bella's spine crack that was so gross >.<
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

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?


maybe he doesn't want freedom but instead people to be idk extinct.

not everyone believes that freedom is always the most morally correct thing.
faerystrangeme
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?)
Ever heard of the "On to Ottawa Trek"? Where poor western canadians marched across canada to reach the capital to protest?
Lovely Limitation's avatar

6,900 Points
  • Profitable 100
  • Signature Look 250
  • Bunny Hoarder 150
I'm really going to only comment about the first scenario for Pro-choice (I read through them all though, you've got a great head on you to come up with these)

If technology were ever to advance to this point, eventually people will see it as heresy to abort a child, but I don't see the need to make abortion illegal. There's really no way for me to put this into simpler terms, it's kind of like...walking down the street. You can take the nice path that everyone likes (heck, you might even like it) or the not so nice path that everyone used to like.

I guess I'm saying I want people to have their options open, it's nice to be given a choice about something that, right now, only has two options. (Mind you, a third option isn't that great but it's nice to be in control)
I would change my stance on abortion if it were proven that each fetus is really a hyper-intelligent lifeform sending psychic signals of peace to the Fighting Aliens of War World.

My hypothetical is literally as likely to occur as the OP's.
Henrika
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww I just watched Bella's spine crack that was so gross >.<
SHOOOOOOOO ROMANTIIIIIIIIIIIC
Suzzy Cyanide's avatar

Aged Fairy

6,200 Points
  • Tooth Fairy 100
  • Generous 100
  • Tycoon 200
Old Blue Collar Joe
Another question then. Tests come available (pro-life) the indicate a 90% or better chance of having a gay child. What would you do? Serial killer? For the pro-choice; test indicates the child would have a genius level IQ.

Is having a gay child so bad that it's being compared to it being a serial killer? I would keep my "gay" child, I think I would abort a serial killer.....
Genius level IQ huh?
Rodney Alcala had a genius IQ....and he was a serial killer.....O.o lol
Seraph of Thursday's avatar

Lonely Saint

Pro-choice. No to all - there is simply no scenario in which women can be forced into decision, if their only crime is to own a fertile reproduction system. I'll give my five cents for each, however.

1st scenario;
If made freely available, I'm sure many women would willingly choose to not abort in this case, private adoptions would probably benefit from it as well. I'd call this the true "easy way out", as you don't really have to choose anything. The problem is out of your life and in someone else's. Financial side is another deal entirely though, in countries such as the USA where health care isn't free, I'm quite sure this would be hellishly expensive and therefore probably not an option for most seeking abortion.

2nd scenario;
No. The whole concept is ridiculous. Women cannot be enslaved or degraded to production units for any reason. This is especially true because from our current perspective, women aborting aren't going to be the reason humanity will go extinct. Right now, the problem seems to be in infertility growing in men, not in women - so how about we turn the tables and force all fertile men to donate sperm daily in order to pump babies into women willing to pop out babies? No? Why not? Because we cannot force people into that. It is simply against every concept of freedom.
I'm also all for reducing the amount of us on this planet by reducing birth rate, it would take a long while for us to actually suffer from declining population, as we'd adapt into the situation somehow. Considering human nature however, I find it very likely that in a scenario like this, women would be degraded into production units with no free will. It simply is the way we work - to uphold an unnatural balance in order to live as we've always done, we're ready to do anything. I do not want to live in that world.

3rd scenario;
No. This is eugenics on its purest. It would make people highly unequal, and is a very steep slippery slope while we're at it, a stepping stone to elimination of all undesirable individuals. However, if such test was made available - and I do doubt it could happen, since IQ is not something we can physically measure, depends on both yet undetermined brain attributes and early individual development both in and out the womb - I'm sure it'd sway many women to choosing an alternative to abortion, if only for the status of being the mother to a genius, or a concept of potential betterment of our species. This, again, is just the way we naturally are.
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

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?


I don't believe that the king should sacrifice the pawn without first being ready to die himself. If one cares about life they should care for it universally, not just the conditions of their own or those deemed somehow "worthy". The child's fate will be matched by my own- I shall not take it upon myself to decide for him/her whether or not their life was worth living. To me, it was our fault that conditions came to this, not those who have not even the chance yet to live, and therefore it is our obligation to fix it without destroying someone else's chance. I do not believe some life is worth living but others are not, we all have the right to live regardless of it's difficulty. (If life is being destructive by its own conscious effort it has lost its innocence IMO but that is the realm of another discussion) Further the unborn are not my slaves, they can grow to be whoever they want and if they decide life is to harsh to be lived let them take it upon themselves to end their lives. To me population control is a popular(lol) cop out- would one support genocide of due to lack of food, or are you willing to share starvation throughout? To me the matter is more about who has the right to power over life rather than a matter of actually caring about life. Those believing in pro-choice believe we can own life if it seems ethical and we can make morals/wisdom as if we were Gods creating something from nothing, whereas those who are pro-life believe life itself is the derivative of all ethics and can't possibly temper with it and still be moral.

"It is not funny that anything else should fall down; only that a man should fall down. Why do we laugh? Because it is a gravely religious matter: it is the Fall of Man. Only man can be absurd: for only man can be dignified."
G.K.
-I do believe that to establish any moral argument it must preserve all notions concerning the sanctity of life and the sanctity of our own humility. We must realize that morality stems from us and our divine upbringing; so to decide morals against our rights is to destroy the purpose thereof.

If matters grew this bad I would urge all the old and well experienced to take our own lives or starve ourselves to create a surplus before our coming generations should meet such a fate; we have the freedom to make a choice on our own lives not someone else's. If the next generations are in peril, it is the previous to blame. It is no question to me, I would surely take my life for my child or those I love; being a pawn is nothing if it is for a greater cause. The question is now: is your body more or less important than what you supposedly care for?
keeping my secrets's avatar

Animal Lover

12,850 Points
  • Pet Trainer 150
  • Pet Lover 100
  • Fluff Healer 100
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?
No.

Way to dump all the unwanted kids on the foster care system. rolleyes Seems to me that it's already shitty enough for kids to have to go through the way it is. confused

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. A woman should still have a right to choose.

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?
Since IQ is said to develop and fluctuate over time, I have no idea how they'd test for that in utero to even begin with, much less know what that person would later go on to do.

Still pro-choice though.

Quote:
Think of the Soylent Green situation mentioned above. Now, in that situation, would you start supporting FORCED abortions?
Not forced. Suggested, perhaps.
I'm pro-circumstance, so I'll answer all of them.
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?
Yes. We're already overpopulated so....

marshmallowcreampie
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.
Yes. Needs of the living over needs of the dead unexisting.

marshmallowcreampie
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?
Gay? No. Because that would be saying gay people are sub-human. Serial killer? Yes. One a*****e > numerous innocents? Right.

marshmallowcreampie
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?
The hell is a false uterus? Yes?

marshmallowcreampie
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?
If it's depopulating 'Children of Men' style, then yes. Otherwise, we're already overpopulated. If that declines for a while, I'm not upset about it.

marshmallowcreampie
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?
Depends. If he's just incredibly smart, there's a lot of those kinds of people. If it's going to be a revolutionary figure responsible for furthering us as a species, then yes, that's completely different.

marshmallowcreampie
Think of the Soylent Green situation mentioned above. Now, in that situation, would you start supporting FORCED abortions?
Where we're overpopulated? Maybe. We'd have to be WAY too overpopulated. Like to the point where trees can no longer keep up with us.
marshmallowcreampie's avatar

Sparkly Pirate

16,650 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Citizen 200
keeping my secrets


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?
Since IQ is said to develop and fluctuate over time, I have no idea how they'd test for that in utero to even begin with, much less know what that person would later go on to do.


Magic. Many of the situations I described can be explained with magic. The test can magically see into the future and can see the child will have lots of potential.
Super 9-Volt's avatar

Super Player

12,000 Points
  • Pie Enabler 100
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Lavish Tipper 200
For the pro-choice section:
No, no, and no. For the last part on forced abortions, no.
Suzzy Cyanide
Old Blue Collar Joe
Another question then. Tests come available (pro-life) the indicate a 90% or better chance of having a gay child. What would you do? Serial killer? For the pro-choice; test indicates the child would have a genius level IQ.

Is having a gay child so bad that it's being compared to it being a serial killer? I would keep my "gay" child, I think I would abort a serial killer.....
Genius level IQ huh?
Rodney Alcala had a genius IQ....and he was a serial killer.....O.o lol


Used the gay and serial killer as two ends of a spectrum. Real answer on this? No one can answer it truthfully until they are in that situation.

Quick Reply

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