So, Abortion.

[Asuiop]

Ever heard of adoptions?

Getting this in before someone says adoption can replace abortion:

Adoption is not a legitimate or viable alternation to abortion. Getting away from the whole bodily sovereignty argument, it's just not practical.

According to the CDC, 827,609 abortions occurred in America in 2007, the latest year for which figures are available. Now, aside from 2007 having the second lowest number of abortions since 1974, in 2005 there were 513,000 children in foster care in the United States. Assuming that number stayed exactly the same (unlikely), that is 1,340,609 more children in foster, and that's just in 2007.

Now, let's factor in how many children are adopted each year. In 2001, 127,407 adoptions occurred in the US. Two fifths were kinship, tribal or private agency adoptions, with kinship adoptions likely being the vast majority (in 1992 Stepparent adoptions, a form of kinship adoption, made up 42% of all adoptions), so let's take off 50,000 or so from that.

Assuming that adoption statistics made a jump of 13,000 or so in the ten years since 2001, let's put the figure of adoptions that weren't kinship or tribal adoptions at 100,000. So, for every 1 adoption, 7 children would be added to the care system.

In ten years, the number of children in care wouldn't 1.3 million, it would be knocking on for 7.5 million, perhaps more. So, unless the US government bans giving children up for adoption, the already overstretched and underfunded care system will collapse from the strain of the better part of three quarters of a million unwanted children added each year.

If you are against abortion then you should do your part, before the government has to start billeting children in people's homes, and adopt 10 unwanted babies.

If you had to weight growing up without parents and death, which would you choose?

[Olthar]

You're the one in favor of killing human beings to spare the mother of taking care of a child.

Killing a fetus is killing something without the capacity to think and has never had a thought, it is not-sentient; hence, it is akin to killing a lower animal (i.e. a rat, deer, etc.).

Killing a rat or deer is more morally objectionable than killing a fetus because at least they have the capacity to feel pain.

[Auralia]

I think this deserves a:


Yes, it is her choice. I know a guy who is alive today because his teenage mother decided not to abort him.

Why would I care about that?

Over 42% of women who have an abortion are under the poverty level. For these women, it's either have another mouth to feed and stretch those dollars farther or abort and risk death to live another day. That's not really a choice.

Poverty does not justify killing a human being to avoid parental obligations.

[Frisivisia]

If you had to weight growing up without parents and death, which would you choose?

Are you illiterate or something?

[Atollus]

If you had to weight growing up without parents and death, which would you choose?

Well, if I hadn't been born yet. I don't think I'd have enough of a thought process to care.

[United Marxist Nations]

If you had to weight growing up without parents and death, which would you choose?

If I were a fetus, I wouldn't have the capacity to choose anything, or care for that matter; hence, it is irrelevant.

[Individuality-ness]

Why would I care about that?

Over 42% of women who have an abortion are under the poverty level. For these women, it's either have another mouth to feed and stretch those dollars farther or abort and risk death to live another day. That's not really a choice.

Ever heard of adoptions?

Adoption and abortion are not the same thing. With adoption, you're still forcing the woman to go through pregnancy, you're still forcing her to go through the pain of childbirth (and in the past, where there wasn't decent medical care available, it led to high maternal mortality), you're still forcing her to give up her body to what is essentially parasitic.

Also, we really don't need more children to add to our already strained foster care system.

[Zweite Alaje]

In spite of Liberalism, not because of it.

I would say that scientific progress was neither because, nor in spite of liberalism; liberalism had nothing to do with it.

That's what "in spite of" means.

In spite of Liberalism, not because of it.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

One thing, yay. So you're gonna tell me liberalism is responsible for all scientific advances, right?

And whether an abortion is safe or not means nothing to someone opposed to the very idea of abortion. Your point?

People in the 1920's were opposed to the very idea of drinking alcohol and passed a Constitutional Amendment banning it. That did not stop the consumption of alcohol. It simply made the alcohol people drank more dangerous. Prohibition does not and never will work.

So can we apply these kinds of arguments to gun control? People will get guns anyway, so gun control is meaningless?

That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Having abortions legal and regulated is comparatively the same as having gun control, not eliminating it.

The federal government was also much less interventionist in the 1920s, the early FBI (est. 1908) was severely undermanned and underfunded. If we did prohibition now, it would most likely work. Abortion would be made incredibly difficult.

[Asuiop]

You're the one in favor of killing human beings to spare the mother of taking care of a child.

Killing a fetus is killing something without the capacity to think and has never had a thought, it is not-sentient; hence, it is akin to killing a lower animal (i.e. a rat, deer, etc.).

When a baby is first born, it has about the mental capacity of a deer. Does that make it allright to kill it?

[Desperate Measures]

If you had to weight growing up without parents and death, which would you choose?

Parents are heavier than death.

[Frisivisia]

Why would I care about that?

Over 42% of women who have an abortion are under the poverty level. For these women, it's either have another mouth to feed and stretch those dollars farther or abort and risk death to live another day. That's not really a choice.

Poverty does not justify killing a human being to avoid parental obligations.

A human being is defined as "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens". Which rules out the "human being" argument.

[Olthar]

If you had to weight growing up without parents and death, which would you choose?

That's not the issue here. The issue is abortion or a slow, painful death in a foster home that can't even afford to feed you because its budget isn't large enough to support all the abandoned children.

[Frisivisia]

Killing a fetus is killing something without the capacity to think and has never had a thought, it is not-sentient; hence, it is akin to killing a lower animal (i.e. a rat, deer, etc.).

When a baby is first born, it has about the mental capacity of a deer. Does that make it allright to kill it?

Does that make it alright to kill deer?

[Auralia]

No. It doesn't.

Why not, if the obligation applies throughout all stages of childhood? Why is pregnancy exempt?

Am I going to get an answer to this?

[Individuality-ness]

Why would I care about that?

Over 42% of women who have an abortion are under the poverty level. For these women, it's either have another mouth to feed and stretch those dollars farther or abort and risk death to live another day. That's not really a choice.

Poverty does not justify killing a human being to avoid parental obligations.

In many cases, abortion is a better alternative to giving birth to a child that's going to end up being unwanted. And abortion is a much better option than having to grow up in poverty, and much better than starvation and malnutrition.

[Asuiop]

If you had to weight growing up without parents and death, which would you choose?

Are you illiterate or something?

I read the fucking article. I know its overstretched, but does that meanmwe should kill human beings to keep it from becomi more overstretched?

[Olthar]

People in the 1920's were opposed to the very idea of drinking alcohol and passed a Constitutional Amendment banning it. That did not stop the consumption of alcohol. It simply made the alcohol people drank more dangerous. Prohibition does not and never will work.


That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Having abortions legal and regulated is comparatively the same as having gun control, not eliminating it.

The federal government was also much less interventionist in the 1920s, the early FBI (est. 1908) was severely undermanned and underfunded. If we did prohibition now, it would most likely work. Abortion would be made incredibly difficult.

And that's why the current War on Drugs has been so successful, right?

[Avenio]

Fair enough. That particular conviction stems from a religious belief that humans have souls, which is sufficient to justify human rights.

I do wish people would be more honest about the religious foundation to their pro-life beliefs. Makes all this mental gymnastics about sapience that much easier to cut through.

From a secular perspective, I would argue that any entity with the inherent capacity for sapience (i.e. the ability to develop sapience over time) should have rights.

'Inherent capacity for sapience' is a very messy argument, since the 'inherent' part doesn't actually apply - unless you're prepared to argue that sperm should be protected as having an 'inherent capacity for sapience'.

[Atollus]

Parents have an obligation to take care of their children and to provide them with food and shelter. This obligation also applies during a pregnancy.

No. It doesn't.

Why not, if the obligation applies throughout all stages of childhood? Why is pregnancy exempt?[/quote]

Am I going to get an answer to this?[/quote]

Its not a child yet. Thus no obligation. Its kinda obvious.

[Frisivisia]

I would say that scientific progress was neither because, nor in spite of liberalism; liberalism had nothing to do with it.

That's what "in spite of" means.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

One thing, yay. So you're gonna tell me liberalism is responsible for all scientific advances, right?

People in the 1920's were opposed to the very idea of drinking alcohol and passed a Constitutional Amendment banning it. That did not stop the consumption of alcohol. It simply made the alcohol people drank more dangerous. Prohibition does not and never will work.


That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Having abortions legal and regulated is comparatively the same as having gun control, not eliminating it.

The federal government was also much less interventionist in the 1920s, the early FBI (est. 1908) was severely undermanned and underfunded. If we did prohibition now, it would most likely work. Abortion would be made incredibly difficult.

You still have yet to give me a citation that scientific progress is hampered by liberalism. Is it because you're scared to expose yourself as a metaphorical fountain of bullshit?

Also, you need to cite that prohibition would work if we did it today.

[United Marxist Nations]

I would say that scientific progress was neither because, nor in spite of liberalism; liberalism had nothing to do with it.

That's what "in spite of" means.

I always thought that meant "despite opposition". Boy do I feel stupid.

[Desperate Measures]

Parents have an obligation to take care of their children and to provide them with food and shelter. This obligation also applies during a pregnancy.

No. It doesn't.

Why not, if the obligation applies throughout all stages of childhood? Why is pregnancy exempt?[/quote]

Am I going to get an answer to this?[/quote]
Because fetus is not a stage in childhood.

[Asuiop]

Poverty does not justify killing a human being to avoid parental obligations.

In many cases, abortion is a better alternative to giving birth to a child that's going to end up being unwanted. And abortion is a much better option than having to grow up in poverty, and much better than starvation and malnutrition.

Death is better than living in poverty?

[Frisivisia]

Are you illiterate or something?

I read the fucking article. I know its overstretched, but does that meanmwe should kill human beings to keep it from becomi more overstretched?

Not human beings. I already addressed that.

[Zweite Alaje]

I don't care if a woman getting an abortion dies from it. I'm against her getting one anyway.

So you admit to supporting murder?

She wanted an abortion, right? If she dies from it, it's her and the hack job doctor's fault.