|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:05 pm
divineseraph garra_eyes Aakosir I know it's bad, but overpopulation is real and definitly becomming an issue. I've heard the overpopulation argument a few times here, and I've gotta say, I don't buy it. (not that overpopulation is real, but that we need abortion to deal with it) Look at the various countries that have enacted policies to try to cope with overpopulation. China, for example, limits the number of children each couple can have to 1. This policy should be causing the population in China to drop. Is it? No. It's still growing a lot. Look at other countries who simply try to control the number of humans being born, and you're going to find similar problems. However, if you look at countries that try to address the social issues behind overpopulation, then you actually do see a drop in the population. (source: an article called Population and Development by Asoka Bandarage) There are a lot of reasons for it, but basically, when you improve the welfare of everyone in a nation and have less drastic gaps between the different classes, birth rates lower. Abortion is not solving the problem of overpopulation. Instead, it's stealing focus away from where it needs to be by falsely claiming to be a solution. That reminds me of the family guy skit on how to break out of the lower class- "Have a whole bunch of kids- Because think of it this way! One of 'em might turn out to be a rock star! And then who are you? You're the parent of a rock star!" Something like that. Well, to be honest, that's not so far off. I mean, for the working class, labor is your highest commodity. And the more kids you have, the more labor you have. In poor communities, the marginal cost of raising an additional child is relatively small. You move up to the middle class, take a look at all the extra stuff that is considered necessary by that group to raise a child, and the cost of one more child goes up a lot.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:30 pm
garra_eyes divineseraph garra_eyes Aakosir I know it's bad, but overpopulation is real and definitly becomming an issue. I've heard the overpopulation argument a few times here, and I've gotta say, I don't buy it. (not that overpopulation is real, but that we need abortion to deal with it) Look at the various countries that have enacted policies to try to cope with overpopulation. China, for example, limits the number of children each couple can have to 1. This policy should be causing the population in China to drop. Is it? No. It's still growing a lot. Look at other countries who simply try to control the number of humans being born, and you're going to find similar problems. However, if you look at countries that try to address the social issues behind overpopulation, then you actually do see a drop in the population. (source: an article called Population and Development by Asoka Bandarage) There are a lot of reasons for it, but basically, when you improve the welfare of everyone in a nation and have less drastic gaps between the different classes, birth rates lower. Abortion is not solving the problem of overpopulation. Instead, it's stealing focus away from where it needs to be by falsely claiming to be a solution. That reminds me of the family guy skit on how to break out of the lower class- "Have a whole bunch of kids- Because think of it this way! One of 'em might turn out to be a rock star! And then who are you? You're the parent of a rock star!" Something like that. Well, to be honest, that's not so far off. I mean, for the working class, labor is your highest commodity. And the more kids you have, the more labor you have. In poor communities, the marginal cost of raising an additional child is relatively small. You move up to the middle class, take a look at all the extra stuff that is considered necessary by that group to raise a child, and the cost of one more child goes up a lot. And that is yet another reason why Capitalism is bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:55 pm
divineseraph garra_eyes divineseraph garra_eyes Aakosir I know it's bad, but overpopulation is real and definitly becomming an issue. I've heard the overpopulation argument a few times here, and I've gotta say, I don't buy it. (not that overpopulation is real, but that we need abortion to deal with it) Look at the various countries that have enacted policies to try to cope with overpopulation. China, for example, limits the number of children each couple can have to 1. This policy should be causing the population in China to drop. Is it? No. It's still growing a lot. Look at other countries who simply try to control the number of humans being born, and you're going to find similar problems. However, if you look at countries that try to address the social issues behind overpopulation, then you actually do see a drop in the population. (source: an article called Population and Development by Asoka Bandarage) There are a lot of reasons for it, but basically, when you improve the welfare of everyone in a nation and have less drastic gaps between the different classes, birth rates lower. Abortion is not solving the problem of overpopulation. Instead, it's stealing focus away from where it needs to be by falsely claiming to be a solution. That reminds me of the family guy skit on how to break out of the lower class- "Have a whole bunch of kids- Because think of it this way! One of 'em might turn out to be a rock star! And then who are you? You're the parent of a rock star!" Something like that. Well, to be honest, that's not so far off. I mean, for the working class, labor is your highest commodity. And the more kids you have, the more labor you have. In poor communities, the marginal cost of raising an additional child is relatively small. You move up to the middle class, take a look at all the extra stuff that is considered necessary by that group to raise a child, and the cost of one more child goes up a lot. And that is yet another reason why Capitalism is bad.
Okay, back to the top. I know that abortion and seterilization will not help with the overpopulation. It's not like they will actually start to sterilize babies. I don't understand how being more well off would cause birth rates to drop. I want a million kids so if I had the money to support them all I would keep popping them out XD { Speaking of overpopulation }This is why I should be a school teacher. Get my dose of kids then come home and say, I don't want anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:04 pm
Aakosir divineseraph garra_eyes divineseraph garra_eyes Aakosir I know it's bad, but overpopulation is real and definitly becomming an issue. I've heard the overpopulation argument a few times here, and I've gotta say, I don't buy it. (not that overpopulation is real, but that we need abortion to deal with it) Look at the various countries that have enacted policies to try to cope with overpopulation. China, for example, limits the number of children each couple can have to 1. This policy should be causing the population in China to drop. Is it? No. It's still growing a lot. Look at other countries who simply try to control the number of humans being born, and you're going to find similar problems. However, if you look at countries that try to address the social issues behind overpopulation, then you actually do see a drop in the population. (source: an article called Population and Development by Asoka Bandarage) There are a lot of reasons for it, but basically, when you improve the welfare of everyone in a nation and have less drastic gaps between the different classes, birth rates lower. Abortion is not solving the problem of overpopulation. Instead, it's stealing focus away from where it needs to be by falsely claiming to be a solution. That reminds me of the family guy skit on how to break out of the lower class- "Have a whole bunch of kids- Because think of it this way! One of 'em might turn out to be a rock star! And then who are you? You're the parent of a rock star!" Something like that. Well, to be honest, that's not so far off. I mean, for the working class, labor is your highest commodity. And the more kids you have, the more labor you have. In poor communities, the marginal cost of raising an additional child is relatively small. You move up to the middle class, take a look at all the extra stuff that is considered necessary by that group to raise a child, and the cost of one more child goes up a lot. And that is yet another reason why Capitalism is bad.
Okay, back to the top. I know that abortion and seterilization will not help with the overpopulation. It's not like they will actually start to sterilize babies. I don't understand how being more well off would cause birth rates to drop. I want a million kids so if I had the money to support them all I would keep popping them out XD { Speaking of overpopulation }This is why I should be a school teacher. Get my dose of kids then come home and say, I don't want anymore. As mentioned above, poverty creates a hope that a child will do better than the parents. Also, the welfare situation, where people with many kids get tax breaks and more government aid, often serve as factors. A while ago, actually, before the industrial revolution, it was the sign of a farmer or worker to have many kids- Because the kids would help the worker to support the family, and when the parents got old, the kids would help them, in hopes that their children would do the same. More children meant more workers meant more crops meant more stability. It may be a carrying on of this mindset while the original intent is long unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:35 pm
i think it is whatever a person makes it out to be.
if you believe it's a moral issue, about killing a child, then you'll love this: here in utah, there's a law that passed (or could be) that makes it a crime for a woman to make herself miscarry. it will go under murder. a woman in utah had a friend beat the crap out of her because she didn't want to be pregnant, but couldn't get an abortion (you have to go out of state to find anyone who would be willing to give one), so the point was to induce a miscarriage, which i think is abortion, but you're just not paying someone to make it happen. i personally think abortion is more ethical than an 'induced miscarriage'. (oh, most people who do this don't add the 'induced'. a miscarrage, as far as i care to know anymore, is a COMPLETE act of god, and nothing you could have done could have stopped it from happening. it's not if you drink, smoke, party or do herbal remedies to make the embryo/fetus/baby whatever you like to call it, die.)
i am getting that for so long, women have been made forced by mostly man (and kind of god) to carry out a pregnancy whether they want to or not. back in the early days of america, it used to be common if a woman didn't want to be pregnant for whatever reason, she could call a midwife and it was taken care of. doctors made it illegal because it was 'killing off future patients' and that women shouldn't have that kind of right to decide.
most people don't see it as black and white. like, it's more likely to be condoned if a woman will likely die if she tries to carry out the pregnancy, zapping both mother and child's chances for survival (so that whole 'if the woman truly had a soul, she'd give her life up for the child' thing is likely crap). rape abortions is sometimes overlooked. not if it's stupid people making stupid choices which lead to these kind of permanant consequences.
i know someone who is very pro-choice because they saw some of the sick stuff parents did to the children they had but didn't want, where they beat the child up, choked it, mentally abused the child, and in one case, had a baby swallow bouncy balls because, well, they really didn't want it and didn't care. that one was more for the sake of whatever child would of been brought in than to get parents off the hook. because in case you didn't notice, they won't carry out the pregnancy to give the child up for adoption. they'll keep it and torment it when they get overwhelmed (and don't want to give up their precious chemicals for food and diapers for the child). as far as they saw, abortion was more humane of an option than torturing a child, because they didn't get the chance to live that horrid abuse.
anyway, that's what i think
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:17 am
SchizoSpazz i think it is whatever a person makes it out to be. if you believe it's a moral issue, about killing a child, then you'll love this: here in utah, there's a law that passed (or could be) that makes it a crime for a woman to make herself miscarry. it will go under murder. a woman in utah had a friend beat the crap out of her because she didn't want to be pregnant, but couldn't get an abortion (you have to go out of state to find anyone who would be willing to give one), so the point was to induce a miscarriage, which i think is abortion, but you're just not paying someone to make it happen. i personally think abortion is more ethical than an 'induced miscarriage'. (oh, most people who do this don't add the 'induced'. a miscarrage, as far as i care to know anymore, is a COMPLETE act of god, and nothing you could have done could have stopped it from happening. it's not if you drink, smoke, party or do herbal remedies to make the embryo/fetus/baby whatever you like to call it, die.) i am getting that for so long, women have been made forced by mostly man (and kind of god) to carry out a pregnancy whether they want to or not. back in the early days of america, it used to be common if a woman didn't want to be pregnant for whatever reason, she could call a midwife and it was taken care of. doctors made it illegal because it was 'killing off future patients' and that women shouldn't have that kind of right to decide. most people don't see it as black and white. like, it's more likely to be condoned if a woman will likely die if she tries to carry out the pregnancy, zapping both mother and child's chances for survival (so that whole 'if the woman truly had a soul, she'd give her life up for the child' thing is likely crap). rape abortions is sometimes overlooked. not if it's stupid people making stupid choices which lead to these kind of permanant consequences. i know someone who is very pro-choice because they saw some of the sick stuff parents did to the children they had but didn't want, where they beat the child up, choked it, mentally abused the child, and in one case, had a baby swallow bouncy balls because, well, they really didn't want it and didn't care. that one was more for the sake of whatever child would of been brought in than to get parents off the hook. because in case you didn't notice, they won't carry out the pregnancy to give the child up for adoption. they'll keep it and torment it when they get overwhelmed (and don't want to give up their precious chemicals for food and diapers for the child). as far as they saw, abortion was more humane of an option than torturing a child, because they didn't get the chance to live that horrid abuse. anyway, that's what i think Those cases are extremely rare, and happen when abortion is legal- They come from terribly sociopathic and psychopathic parents who want to feel powerful or some such thing. Meaning, if they want to torture a child, they will torture a child whether they have the option to kill it in the womb or not. That, and of the handful of situations like this, this suddenly justifies the millions of abortions every year? Come on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:21 am
divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph garra_eyes divineseraph That reminds me of the family guy skit on how to break out of the lower class- "Have a whole bunch of kids- Because think of it this way! One of 'em might turn out to be a rock star! And then who are you? You're the parent of a rock star!" Something like that. Well, to be honest, that's not so far off. I mean, for the working class, labor is your highest commodity. And the more kids you have, the more labor you have. In poor communities, the marginal cost of raising an additional child is relatively small. You move up to the middle class, take a look at all the extra stuff that is considered necessary by that group to raise a child, and the cost of one more child goes up a lot. And that is yet another reason why Capitalism is bad.
Okay, back to the top. I know that abortion and seterilization will not help with the overpopulation. It's not like they will actually start to sterilize babies. I don't understand how being more well off would cause birth rates to drop. I want a million kids so if I had the money to support them all I would keep popping them out XD { Speaking of overpopulation }This is why I should be a school teacher. Get my dose of kids then come home and say, I don't want anymore. As mentioned above, poverty creates a hope that a child will do better than the parents. Also, the welfare situation, where people with many kids get tax breaks and more government aid, often serve as factors. A while ago, actually, before the industrial revolution, it was the sign of a farmer or worker to have many kids- Because the kids would help the worker to support the family, and when the parents got old, the kids would help them, in hopes that their children would do the same. More children meant more workers meant more crops meant more stability. It may be a carrying on of this mindset while the original intent is long unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:29 am
divineseraph SchizoSpazz i think it is whatever a person makes it out to be. if you believe it's a moral issue, about killing a child, then you'll love this: here in utah, there's a law that passed (or could be) that makes it a crime for a woman to make herself miscarry. it will go under murder. a woman in utah had a friend beat the crap out of her because she didn't want to be pregnant, but couldn't get an abortion (you have to go out of state to find anyone who would be willing to give one), so the point was to induce a miscarriage, which i think is abortion, but you're just not paying someone to make it happen. i personally think abortion is more ethical than an 'induced miscarriage'. (oh, most people who do this don't add the 'induced'. a miscarrage, as far as i care to know anymore, is a COMPLETE act of god, and nothing you could have done could have stopped it from happening. it's not if you drink, smoke, party or do herbal remedies to make the embryo/fetus/baby whatever you like to call it, die.) i am getting that for so long, women have been made forced by mostly man (and kind of god) to carry out a pregnancy whether they want to or not. back in the early days of america, it used to be common if a woman didn't want to be pregnant for whatever reason, she could call a midwife and it was taken care of. doctors made it illegal because it was 'killing off future patients' and that women shouldn't have that kind of right to decide. most people don't see it as black and white. like, it's more likely to be condoned if a woman will likely die if she tries to carry out the pregnancy, zapping both mother and child's chances for survival (so that whole 'if the woman truly had a soul, she'd give her life up for the child' thing is likely crap). rape abortions is sometimes overlooked. not if it's stupid people making stupid choices which lead to these kind of permanant consequences. i know someone who is very pro-choice because they saw some of the sick stuff parents did to the children they had but didn't want, where they beat the child up, choked it, mentally abused the child, and in one case, had a baby swallow bouncy balls because, well, they really didn't want it and didn't care. that one was more for the sake of whatever child would of been brought in than to get parents off the hook. because in case you didn't notice, they won't carry out the pregnancy to give the child up for adoption. they'll keep it and torment it when they get overwhelmed (and don't want to give up their precious chemicals for food and diapers for the child). as far as they saw, abortion was more humane of an option than torturing a child, because they didn't get the chance to live that horrid abuse. anyway, that's what i think Those cases are extremely rare, and happen when abortion is legal- They come from terribly sociopathic and psychopathic parents who want to feel powerful or some such thing. Meaning, if they want to torture a child, they will torture a child whether they have the option to kill it in the womb or not. That, and of the handful of situations like this, this suddenly justifies the millions of abortions every year? Come on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:17 am
Aakosir Yes, that was definitly true back when there were farmers and no machinery. But now I guess it is more for the tax break and governemt aid. It's still true now. I mean, if you're going to make a living as a farmer, you need a lot of land. You also need a lot of people to work the machinery for that land. My roommate was the youngest of 10 kids, they all grew up on a farm, and there was always plenty of work to go around. Most of the kids have moved out now (My roommate and 2 other siblings still live close enough to help out around harvest time and whatnot), and they have to hire a lot more workers to help out now. Of course, this is only looking at family farms, which are actually a lot more rare these days. Most families living below the poverty line do not actually own farms. Still, there's a lot of work that a child can do without violating child labor laws (or by violating them in a way nobody will notice) One of my good friends worked in an orchard with the rest of his family since he was about eight years old. His parents were illegal immigrants, so they were being paid under the table anyway, and it was easy enough for them to get past the child labor laws in this country. And that's just in the US. When you look at some of the fastest growing populations in the world, you'll find that there are a lot of them in countries where farming is still being done without a ton of technology in the poorer communities and there aren't as many child labor laws. But again, there are additional reasons why having an additional child can be economically beneficial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:59 am
garra_eyes Chieftain Twilight dude, that's too far now. the point where an offer to agree to disagree is made should be the end of it. I'm gonna have to disagree. wink Personally, I feel like the "let's agree to disagree" move should be used sparingly, otherwise it becomes abusive. When you argue and argue, and eventually reach the point where the only thing that keeps you from agreeing is a matter of opinion, that is the perfect time to pull out "let's agree to disagree," because the argument can clearly go no further. However, when someone questions the logic you're using, to respond with "let's agree to disagree" is kind of a complete and utter cop out. What you're really saying is, "I can't support my own beliefs, but I'm going to believe them anyway." This is, understandably, infuriating for some people. If you have valid reasons to disagree with me, awesome. You go right ahead and disagree. But if you don't have any valid reasons to disagree, and you continue to do so, it makes me feel like you don't care about anything I say. You don't value my opinion, and all the time we have spent discussing and debating was about as meaningful as debating with a brick wall. ("you" and "me" being general terms here, not specifically identifying ones, as neither of us were actually a part of the original conversation) I'm all for people backing off when the argument can no longer move forward, but not wanting to admit your own logical fallacies is not a valid reason to quit debating. It's just refusing to think about anything for the sake of being stubborn. It's ridiculous. I'm not even a part of their conversation, and I'm angered by her move. So it's wrong to try to keep civil? I've given more than enough to support my beliefs, I don't want to argue with a brick wall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:58 pm
Aakosir divineseraph SchizoSpazz i think it is whatever a person makes it out to be. if you believe it's a moral issue, about killing a child, then you'll love this: here in utah, there's a law that passed (or could be) that makes it a crime for a woman to make herself miscarry. it will go under murder. a woman in utah had a friend beat the crap out of her because she didn't want to be pregnant, but couldn't get an abortion (you have to go out of state to find anyone who would be willing to give one), so the point was to induce a miscarriage, which i think is abortion, but you're just not paying someone to make it happen. i personally think abortion is more ethical than an 'induced miscarriage'. (oh, most people who do this don't add the 'induced'. a miscarrage, as far as i care to know anymore, is a COMPLETE act of god, and nothing you could have done could have stopped it from happening. it's not if you drink, smoke, party or do herbal remedies to make the embryo/fetus/baby whatever you like to call it, die.) i am getting that for so long, women have been made forced by mostly man (and kind of god) to carry out a pregnancy whether they want to or not. back in the early days of america, it used to be common if a woman didn't want to be pregnant for whatever reason, she could call a midwife and it was taken care of. doctors made it illegal because it was 'killing off future patients' and that women shouldn't have that kind of right to decide. most people don't see it as black and white. like, it's more likely to be condoned if a woman will likely die if she tries to carry out the pregnancy, zapping both mother and child's chances for survival (so that whole 'if the woman truly had a soul, she'd give her life up for the child' thing is likely crap). rape abortions is sometimes overlooked. not if it's stupid people making stupid choices which lead to these kind of permanant consequences. i know someone who is very pro-choice because they saw some of the sick stuff parents did to the children they had but didn't want, where they beat the child up, choked it, mentally abused the child, and in one case, had a baby swallow bouncy balls because, well, they really didn't want it and didn't care. that one was more for the sake of whatever child would of been brought in than to get parents off the hook. because in case you didn't notice, they won't carry out the pregnancy to give the child up for adoption. they'll keep it and torment it when they get overwhelmed (and don't want to give up their precious chemicals for food and diapers for the child). as far as they saw, abortion was more humane of an option than torturing a child, because they didn't get the chance to live that horrid abuse. anyway, that's what i think Those cases are extremely rare, and happen when abortion is legal- They come from terribly sociopathic and psychopathic parents who want to feel powerful or some such thing. Meaning, if they want to torture a child, they will torture a child whether they have the option to kill it in the womb or not. That, and of the handful of situations like this, this suddenly justifies the millions of abortions every year? Come on. Firstly, several? And again, this justifies millions of deaths? Secondly, this occurred while abortion was legal, correct? So it has absolutely NO correlation to abortion preventing abuse, whatsoever. All it proves is that there are a few mentally handicapped people having children who shouldn't, not that abortion makes it stop happening- Clearly, it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:00 pm
Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph garra_eyes divineseraph That reminds me of the family guy skit on how to break out of the lower class- "Have a whole bunch of kids- Because think of it this way! One of 'em might turn out to be a rock star! And then who are you? You're the parent of a rock star!" Something like that. Well, to be honest, that's not so far off. I mean, for the working class, labor is your highest commodity. And the more kids you have, the more labor you have. In poor communities, the marginal cost of raising an additional child is relatively small. You move up to the middle class, take a look at all the extra stuff that is considered necessary by that group to raise a child, and the cost of one more child goes up a lot. And that is yet another reason why Capitalism is bad.
Okay, back to the top. I know that abortion and seterilization will not help with the overpopulation. It's not like they will actually start to sterilize babies. I don't understand how being more well off would cause birth rates to drop. I want a million kids so if I had the money to support them all I would keep popping them out XD { Speaking of overpopulation }This is why I should be a school teacher. Get my dose of kids then come home and say, I don't want anymore. As mentioned above, poverty creates a hope that a child will do better than the parents. Also, the welfare situation, where people with many kids get tax breaks and more government aid, often serve as factors. A while ago, actually, before the industrial revolution, it was the sign of a farmer or worker to have many kids- Because the kids would help the worker to support the family, and when the parents got old, the kids would help them, in hopes that their children would do the same. More children meant more workers meant more crops meant more stability. It may be a carrying on of this mindset while the original intent is long unnecessary. Then why is the lottery aimed at the poor? The poor are looking for any hope they can grasp on to, be it the lucky scratch-off ticket or the lucky rock-star child. I'm not saying it's the best moves, but it happens, and it is most certainly related to the economic condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:01 pm
Tourniquet Static garra_eyes Chieftain Twilight dude, that's too far now. the point where an offer to agree to disagree is made should be the end of it. I'm gonna have to disagree. wink Personally, I feel like the "let's agree to disagree" move should be used sparingly, otherwise it becomes abusive. When you argue and argue, and eventually reach the point where the only thing that keeps you from agreeing is a matter of opinion, that is the perfect time to pull out "let's agree to disagree," because the argument can clearly go no further. However, when someone questions the logic you're using, to respond with "let's agree to disagree" is kind of a complete and utter cop out. What you're really saying is, "I can't support my own beliefs, but I'm going to believe them anyway." This is, understandably, infuriating for some people. If you have valid reasons to disagree with me, awesome. You go right ahead and disagree. But if you don't have any valid reasons to disagree, and you continue to do so, it makes me feel like you don't care about anything I say. You don't value my opinion, and all the time we have spent discussing and debating was about as meaningful as debating with a brick wall. ("you" and "me" being general terms here, not specifically identifying ones, as neither of us were actually a part of the original conversation) I'm all for people backing off when the argument can no longer move forward, but not wanting to admit your own logical fallacies is not a valid reason to quit debating. It's just refusing to think about anything for the sake of being stubborn. It's ridiculous. I'm not even a part of their conversation, and I'm angered by her move. So it's wrong to try to keep civil? I've given more than enough to support my beliefs, I don't want to argue with a brick wall. You weren't being civil at all. You were being passive aggressive. Admit it and come back into the debate using logic, or GTFO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:16 pm
divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph SchizoSpazz i think it is whatever a person makes it out to be. if you believe it's a moral issue, about killing a child, then you'll love this: here in utah, there's a law that passed (or could be) that makes it a crime for a woman to make herself miscarry. it will go under murder. a woman in utah had a friend beat the crap out of her because she didn't want to be pregnant, but couldn't get an abortion (you have to go out of state to find anyone who would be willing to give one), so the point was to induce a miscarriage, which i think is abortion, but you're just not paying someone to make it happen. i personally think abortion is more ethical than an 'induced miscarriage'. (oh, most people who do this don't add the 'induced'. a miscarrage, as far as i care to know anymore, is a COMPLETE act of god, and nothing you could have done could have stopped it from happening. it's not if you drink, smoke, party or do herbal remedies to make the embryo/fetus/baby whatever you like to call it, die.) i am getting that for so long, women have been made forced by mostly man (and kind of god) to carry out a pregnancy whether they want to or not. back in the early days of america, it used to be common if a woman didn't want to be pregnant for whatever reason, she could call a midwife and it was taken care of. doctors made it illegal because it was 'killing off future patients' and that women shouldn't have that kind of right to decide. most people don't see it as black and white. like, it's more likely to be condoned if a woman will likely die if she tries to carry out the pregnancy, zapping both mother and child's chances for survival (so that whole 'if the woman truly had a soul, she'd give her life up for the child' thing is likely crap). rape abortions is sometimes overlooked. not if it's stupid people making stupid choices which lead to these kind of permanant consequences. i know someone who is very pro-choice because they saw some of the sick stuff parents did to the children they had but didn't want, where they beat the child up, choked it, mentally abused the child, and in one case, had a baby swallow bouncy balls because, well, they really didn't want it and didn't care. that one was more for the sake of whatever child would of been brought in than to get parents off the hook. because in case you didn't notice, they won't carry out the pregnancy to give the child up for adoption. they'll keep it and torment it when they get overwhelmed (and don't want to give up their precious chemicals for food and diapers for the child). as far as they saw, abortion was more humane of an option than torturing a child, because they didn't get the chance to live that horrid abuse. anyway, that's what i think Those cases are extremely rare, and happen when abortion is legal- They come from terribly sociopathic and psychopathic parents who want to feel powerful or some such thing. Meaning, if they want to torture a child, they will torture a child whether they have the option to kill it in the womb or not. That, and of the handful of situations like this, this suddenly justifies the millions of abortions every year? Come on. Firstly, several? And again, this justifies millions of deaths? Secondly, this occurred while abortion was legal, correct? So it has absolutely NO correlation to abortion preventing abuse, whatsoever. All it proves is that there are a few mentally handicapped people having children who shouldn't, not that abortion makes it stop happening- Clearly, it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:18 pm
divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph Aakosir divineseraph And that is yet another reason why Capitalism is bad.
Okay, back to the top. I know that abortion and seterilization will not help with the overpopulation. It's not like they will actually start to sterilize babies. I don't understand how being more well off would cause birth rates to drop. I want a million kids so if I had the money to support them all I would keep popping them out XD { Speaking of overpopulation }This is why I should be a school teacher. Get my dose of kids then come home and say, I don't want anymore. As mentioned above, poverty creates a hope that a child will do better than the parents. Also, the welfare situation, where people with many kids get tax breaks and more government aid, often serve as factors. A while ago, actually, before the industrial revolution, it was the sign of a farmer or worker to have many kids- Because the kids would help the worker to support the family, and when the parents got old, the kids would help them, in hopes that their children would do the same. More children meant more workers meant more crops meant more stability. It may be a carrying on of this mindset while the original intent is long unnecessary. Then why is the lottery aimed at the poor? The poor are looking for any hope they can grasp on to, be it the lucky scratch-off ticket or the lucky rock-star child. I'm not saying it's the best moves, but it happens, and it is most certainly related to the economic condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
