Abortion is Wrong?

[Central Slavia]

Wait. A "person" who is pregnant, makes the decision to have (or not to have) an abortion. Tell me what is the responsible choice THEN, not back when they "made a decision".

I'm on the case. I'm blind rotten drunk, hungry and horny, but I have the scent of the problem here. It is causality. It's about blaming a person for all of the consequences of their decision ... while we make decisions every day which we do not know the consequences of.

We are butterflies, flapping madly in a cyclone machine. To hold each other responsible for the consequences of action is to add ignorance to chaos.

Than, the responsible decision is to care for their child. If they are unable to care for it, they can give it a differnt faimly or Government/privite programs.

Um, no.

If you are in favour of "adoption before abortion" then you must also be prepared to pay for orphanages. You must be prepared to pay for lifetime support of severely disabled children (and adults who grow from them).

Why? Because without abortion there would be many many more unwanted children. Who is going to care for those children?

If you advocate a LAW which makes birth of those children obligatory, you must also take responsibility for those children.

Leaving it to charity isn't good enough. If that's the law you would make, you must take responsibility for the orphans you make.

I'd say you also should be forced to pay for all the medical expenses incurred as a result of pregnancy, as well as paying out benefits to a woman's family members if she dies in childbirth, as well as insuring her a source of income if she is forced to miss work due to pregnancy/childbirth.

If I'm going to be forced to function as an incubator for The State, then why on Earth should the State expect me to foot the bill for the pregnancy they are forcing upon me?

If the State is going to require it, the State can damn well pay for the consequences.

"Oh, charity will pay for it" isn't good enough. If we legislate for a buttload of new orphans, we should legislate for their proper care too. And that is a huge commitment.

Yep.

Oh, and I want The State to ensure that I still have the same job opportunities even if my forced pregnancy makes me miss out on interviews, or conventions, or meetings, or other factors that might influence my odds of getting a promotion.

I want the State to ensure that my insurance rates don't go up as a result of any medical conditions I might end up with as a result of my pregnancy. If I end up with a life-long medical issue as a result of my pregnancy (like my mother has done), I expect to be permitted to collect life-long compensation for that injury.

If my partner leaves me because of the pregnancy and I'm not able to pay my full rent any more, I expect The State to pick up the bill.

If my fertility is harmed by the forced pregnancy and I'm not able to conceive later in life, when I actually WANT to be pregnant, then I expect The State to provide me with a settlement that reflects the loss of each child I was planning to have; I think a minimum of $15 million per child would be fair, considering that we're talking about 70 years or so of my would-be child's life.

If I want plastic surgery to repair damage from the pregnancy (like, for instance, an episiotomy or caesarian scar), I expect The State to foot the bill for that as well. If they're going to take away my body against my wishes, then they should expect to pay for me to regain whatever measure of my body I want.

This is actually a fun game!

I say it again. If you do not want unwanted pregnancy, do not fuck, fornicate, engage in carnal relationships or whatever shall i use to you to understand.
the problem happened with getting pregnant, not with the state not allowing you an abortion.
In the same way if you borrow money from your neighbor, the state does not have to repay you even if it does not allow you to kill him to anull the debt

Yes, all the time ignoring that abortions are, in fact, legal and allowed by that some government.
I wonder why that is, that abortions are legal in many places.

I also wonder why arization of property was legal, but that makes poor argument

[United Russian State]

What? That in no way addresses my problem. You're not allowed to add your own conditions to avoid the question. Fifty people in one room: Five Hundred in another. Two big piles of food of equal size. No other conditions. Who dies first?

If this room as no ways of producing food, the one with the higher number. However on earth you have many ways of producing more food. Not to mention TECH whcih helps to produce faster. One would think the people down the line will leave their "room" because their will not be recsources forever able to produced.

Maybe, but the fifty are going to have a better chance of surviving long enough to figure out how to leave than the five-hundred would.

Yea...expect if their "room" is next to the one with 500 poeople, and that one decieds to steal it's rescources. Higher population, the better your odds. Or the more people, the more ideas there are, which can lead to helping create new THECs to produce recources faster, and find a new "room" in anther "house" fadter than the other needs to leave, and so on.

[Katganistan]

I do not care about future consequences and nobody should in the way you put it. In the long run we will be dead. We can do what we can for the species to expand and continue. However cutting the population is a truly decadent way to go back on progress, and die out pretty much soon

and the financial collapse's main reason is the capitalist system - throw that out and it will run

Put fifty people in one room and five-hundred people in another. Give them the same amount of food. Tell me which group will die first and then tell me if you've spotted the gargantuan abyss in your logic yet.

if the amount is a truckload , then the 50 are going to die sooner, assuming some accident rate.
Abyss averted

What? That in no way addresses my problem. You're not allowed to add your own conditions to avoid the question. Fifty people in one room: Five Hundred in another. Two big piles of food of equal size. No other conditions. Who dies first?

Fine. Considering no o ther factors they die at the same time

Logic fail.

Fifty people with five hundred MREs will have ten meals each.
Five hundred people with five hundred MREs will have one meal each.
This is simple mathematics.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

A reason one might have for being intentionally obtuse would be in order to claim that others have poor reading comprehension.

How am I being obtuse? I said I'm not pro-life. This means I disagree with Slavia. Since there really are only two positions on abortion's legality, I must agree with you by default.

[The Ularn]

I do not care about future consequences and nobody should in the way you put it. In the long run we will be dead. We can do what we can for the species to expand and continue. However cutting the population is a truly decadent way to go back on progress, and die out pretty much soon

and the financial collapse's main reason is the capitalist system - throw that out and it will run

Put fifty people in one room and five-hundred people in another. Give them the same amount of food. Tell me which group will die first and then tell me if you've spotted the gargantuan abyss in your logic yet.

if the amount is a truckload , then the 50 are going to die sooner, assuming some accident rate.
Abyss averted

What? That in no way addresses my problem. You're not allowed to add your own conditions to avoid the question. Fifty people in one room: Five Hundred in another. Two big piles of food of equal size. No other conditions. Who dies first?

Fine. Considering no o ther factors they die at the same time

Wut? How do you figure that? Here be some basic maths for you:

F/50>F/500 where F equals food. Ergo, fifty people get larger shares of food than five hundred would when both groups are given the same overall amount of food. Thus, the better fed group would live longer. I'm trying not to sound angry or annoyed here but seriously, how is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

[GraySoap]

Fifty people with five hundred MREs will have ten meals each.
Five hundred people with five hundred MREs will have one meal each.
This is simple mathematics.

But who can produce more MREs, 50 people or 500 people? Of course there are land limits in realistic populations...

[The Alma Mater]

Fifty people with five hundred MREs will have ten meals each.
Five hundred people with five hundred MREs will have one meal each.
This is simple mathematics.

Nitpick: it is almost certain that some people would get more meals than others. Some would get far less. We are not a nice and fair species.
On average you are of course correct.

[Katganistan]

Wait. A "person" who is pregnant, makes the decision to have (or not to have) an abortion. Tell me what is the responsible choice THEN, not back when they "made a decision".

I'm on the case. I'm blind rotten drunk, hungry and horny, but I have the scent of the problem here. It is causality. It's about blaming a person for all of the consequences of their decision ... while we make decisions every day which we do not know the consequences of.

We are butterflies, flapping madly in a cyclone machine. To hold each other responsible for the consequences of action is to add ignorance to chaos.

Than, the responsible decision is to care for their child. If they are unable to care for it, they can give it a differnt faimly or Government/privite programs.

Um, no.

If you are in favour of "adoption before abortion" then you must also be prepared to pay for orphanages. You must be prepared to pay for lifetime support of severely disabled children (and adults who grow from them).

Why? Because without abortion there would be many many more unwanted children. Who is going to care for those children?

If you advocate a LAW which makes birth of those children obligatory, you must also take responsibility for those children.

Leaving it to charity isn't good enough. If that's the law you would make, you must take responsibility for the orphans you make.

I'd say you also should be forced to pay for all the medical expenses incurred as a result of pregnancy, as well as paying out benefits to a woman's family members if she dies in childbirth, as well as insuring her a source of income if she is forced to miss work due to pregnancy/childbirth.

If I'm going to be forced to function as an incubator for The State, then why on Earth should the State expect me to foot the bill for the pregnancy they are forcing upon me?

If the State is going to require it, the State can damn well pay for the consequences.

"Oh, charity will pay for it" isn't good enough. If we legislate for a buttload of new orphans, we should legislate for their proper care too. And that is a huge commitment.

Yep.

Oh, and I want The State to ensure that I still have the same job opportunities even if my forced pregnancy makes me miss out on interviews, or conventions, or meetings, or other factors that might influence my odds of getting a promotion.

I want the State to ensure that my insurance rates don't go up as a result of any medical conditions I might end up with as a result of my pregnancy. If I end up with a life-long medical issue as a result of my pregnancy (like my mother has done), I expect to be permitted to collect life-long compensation for that injury.

If my partner leaves me because of the pregnancy and I'm not able to pay my full rent any more, I expect The State to pick up the bill.

If my fertility is harmed by the forced pregnancy and I'm not able to conceive later in life, when I actually WANT to be pregnant, then I expect The State to provide me with a settlement that reflects the loss of each child I was planning to have; I think a minimum of $15 million per child would be fair, considering that we're talking about 70 years or so of my would-be child's life.

If I want plastic surgery to repair damage from the pregnancy (like, for instance, an episiotomy or caesarian scar), I expect The State to foot the bill for that as well. If they're going to take away my body against my wishes, then they should expect to pay for me to regain whatever measure of my body I want.

This is actually a fun game!

I say it again. If you do not want unwanted pregnancy, do not fuck, fornicate, engage in carnal relationships or whatever shall i use to you to understand.
the problem happened with getting pregnant, not with the state not allowing you an abortion.
In the same way if you borrow money from your neighbor, the state does not have to repay you even if it does not allow you to kill him to anull the debt

Yes, all the time ignoring that abortions are, in fact, legal and allowed by that some government.
I wonder why that is, that abortions are legal in many places.

I also wonder why arization of property was legal, but that makes poor argument

Really?
Well,if one thought a moment about it, one might see rather quickly that it is because it is a human rights issue: the right to self determination and self-ownership. Women have the right to own themselves and to determine what they will and will not do in life. Women have the right, as do men, to decide whether or not they will be organ donors -- you can't just come take my kidney, nor can you force me to use my kidneys to filter your bloodstream.

But then, your argument was that fifty people and five hundred people, each with the same amount of food, will die at the same time...

[Central Slavia]

I do not care about future consequences and nobody should in the way you put it. In the long run we will be dead. We can do what we can for the species to expand and continue. However cutting the population is a truly decadent way to go back on progress, and die out pretty much soon

and the financial collapse's main reason is the capitalist system - throw that out and it will run

Put fifty people in one room and five-hundred people in another. Give them the same amount of food. Tell me which group will die first and then tell me if you've spotted the gargantuan abyss in your logic yet.

if the amount is a truckload , then the 50 are going to die sooner, assuming some accident rate.
Abyss averted

What? That in no way addresses my problem. You're not allowed to add your own conditions to avoid the question. Fifty people in one room: Five Hundred in another. Two big piles of food of equal size. No other conditions. Who dies first?

Fine. Considering no o ther factors they die at the same time

Wut? How do you figure that? Here be some basic maths for you:

F/50>F/500 where F equals food. Ergo, fifty people get larger shares of food than five hundred would when both groups are given the same overall amount of food. Thus, the better fed group would live longer. I'm trying not to sound angry or annoyed here but seriously, how is this concept so difficult for you to
understand?

Aha! Hidden assumption exposed.
but people do not live forever ...
ergo if F>500L where L is lifetime requirement for the average person, it stops being a limiting factor on their life expectancy

[Katganistan]

Fifty people with five hundred MREs will have ten meals each.
Five hundred people with five hundred MREs will have one meal each.
This is simple mathematics.

But who can produce more MREs, 50 people or 500 people? Of course there are land limits in realistic populations...

That wasn't part of the question, now was it?

[Nobel Hobos]

Are you disagreeing with me, or disagreeing with Central Slavia? Your comment appears to be aimed at my post, yet I am not responding to you.

Well I'm not pro life. So there's your answer about whom I'm disagreeing with.

Jesus, that was the most awkward sentence ever.

I got it.

If you want to rave, rave with PostReply. Don't pretend to be answering any other poster; that does offend.

[Katganistan]

I do not care about future consequences and nobody should in the way you put it. In the long run we will be dead. We can do what we can for the species to expand and continue. However cutting the population is a truly decadent way to go back on progress, and die out pretty much soon

and the financial collapse's main reason is the capitalist system - throw that out and it will run

Put fifty people in one room and five-hundred people in another. Give them the same amount of food. Tell me which group will die first and then tell me if you've spotted the gargantuan abyss in your logic yet.

if the amount is a truckload , then the 50 are going to die sooner, assuming some accident rate.
Abyss averted

What? That in no way addresses my problem. You're not allowed to add your own conditions to avoid the question. Fifty people in one room: Five Hundred in another. Two big piles of food of equal size. No other conditions. Who dies first?

Fine. Considering no o ther factors they die at the same time

Wut? How do you figure that? Here be some basic maths for you:

F/50>F/500 where F equals food. Ergo, fifty people get larger shares of food than five hundred would when both groups are given the same overall amount of food. Thus, the better fed group would live longer. I'm trying not to sound angry or annoyed here but seriously, how is this concept so difficult for you to
understand?

Aha! Hidden assumption exposed.
but people do not live forever ...
ergo if F>500L where L is lifetime requirement for the average person, it stops being a limiting factor on their life expectancy

Except that was not what was posited.

[GWSSDelta]

You are all communists here.

[United Russian State]

I do not care about future consequences and nobody should in the way you put it. In the long run we will be dead. We can do what we can for the species to expand and continue. However cutting the population is a truly decadent way to go back on progress, and die out pretty much soon

and the financial collapse's main reason is the capitalist system - throw that out and it will run

Put fifty people in one room and five-hundred people in another. Give them the same amount of food. Tell me which group will die first and then tell me if you've spotted the gargantuan abyss in your logic yet.

if the amount is a truckload , then the 50 are going to die sooner, assuming some accident rate.
Abyss averted

What? That in no way addresses my problem. You're not allowed to add your own conditions to avoid the question. Fifty people in one room: Five Hundred in another. Two big piles of food of equal size. No other conditions. Who dies first?

Fine. Considering no o ther factors they die at the same time

Wut? How do you figure that? Here be some basic maths for you:

F/50>F/500 where F equals food. Ergo, fifty people get larger shares of food than five hundred would when both groups are given the same overall amount of food. Thus, the better fed group would live longer. I'm trying not to sound angry or annoyed here but seriously, how is this concept so difficult for you to
understand?

Aha! Hidden assumption exposed.
but people do not live forever ...
ergo if F>500L where L is lifetime requirement for the average person, it stops being a limiting factor on their life expectancy

You know this whole idea people are stuck in a room and only have certian food supply unable to produce anymore, was stupid. Thats everything differnt than how things work on the planet. Wouldn't you agree? <.<

[Central Slavia]

Aha! Hidden assumption exposed.
but people do not live forever ...
ergo if F>500L where L is lifetime requirement for the average person, it stops being a limiting factor on their life expectancy

Except that was not what was posited.

Of course not. somebody else asked the question.
But this goes at the core of it.
I think with technology use, earth has enough resources to feed many times current population, you seem to think the opposite.
THat is where the problem lies.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

You are all communists here.

No, but thanks for playing.

[Turanbirligi]

all communists-in the forest

[Central Slavia]

You know this whole idea people are stuck in a room and only have certian food supply unable to produce anymore, was stupid. Thats everything differnt than how things work on the planet. Wouldn't you agree? <.<

It depends.
We are trying to model earth's resources which are finite - cannot be produced by the food.
then you see where my arguments come from

[The Ularn]

What? That in no way addresses my problem. You're not allowed to add your own conditions to avoid the question. Fifty people in one room: Five Hundred in another. Two big piles of food of equal size. No other conditions. Who dies first?

If this room as no ways of producing food, the one with the higher number. However on earth you have many ways of producing more food. Not to mention TECH whcih helps to produce faster. One would think the people down the line will leave their "room" because their will not be recsources forever able to produced.

Maybe, but the fifty are going to have a better chance of surviving long enough to figure out how to leave than the five-hundred would.

Yea...expect if their "room" is next to the one with 500 poeople, and that one decieds to steal it's rescources. Higher population, the better your odds. Or the more people, the more ideas there are, which can lead to helping create new THECs to produce recources faster, and find a new "room" in anther "house" fadter than the other needs to leave, and so on.

At this point the metaphor starts to break down, so I'm going to stop using it. In a way I do see your point, though I still think you're wrong.

I think part of the problem was you didn't realise that in my analogy "food" simply represented all the world's resources, not merely the edible ones, and while in the room scenario it might be possible to make more food, we cannot make the Earth have more resources.

It may appear that with a larger population it's more likely that someone among them will know how to make a rocket ship to take us to a new planet with more resources, but bear in mind that the smaller population will have more time to come up with such a person before they die out. Also, with more resources per person there is a greater chance that this prodigy will be found and have what is needed for their potential to be realised, whereas in a larger population the odds are greater that they will be born in an underdeveloped slum and never be able to benefit us.

Ultimately, though it may take longer, I think a smaller world population is more likely to survive to reach the stars and secure its survival than a large one.

[The Alma Mater]

You are all communists here.

Nah. Communists are pro-life. Us devout Christians are pro-choice, like the Bible explicitly tells us.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Of course not. somebody else asked the question.
But this goes at the core of it.
I think with technology use, earth has enough resources to feed many times current population, you seem to think the opposite.
THat is where the problem lies.

Actually the problem lies with the fact that you seem to be considering each factor necessary for our survival to be totally independent of all the other factors.

[Meldaria]

In order to be alive a creature must be:

A. Self-Aware

B. Self-Dependent
--------------------------------
A. A fetus is not self-aware, it has no idea of it's surroundings and cannot feel pain, nor can it think.

B. A fetus is not self-dependent it relies completely on it's mother for life.

A fetus shares more characteristics with a tumor than a person.

1. Has Human DNA

2. Is NOT alive

3. Is not self-aware
= #2
4. Is not self-dependent

5. Weakens it's host

6. Is constantly growing

So plants, bacteria, fungii, most classes of animals, protists, and archaea aren't alive then?

Actually Plants, Bacteria, Fungi, most classes of animals, protists, and archaea are all self-aware and self-dependent. Please do some research before you come into this thread with nonsense.

So a parasitic bacterium is not alive?

A parasite or parasitic bacterium is self-dependent, it depends on itself to eat. A fetus is fed by a tube.
:/

???
for example. what a tapeworm does is just like that- join to intestine and suck nutrients right out of bloodstream.
Still no answer

It's consciously attaching itself and consciously sucking. A fetus just sits there not thinking and having food tubed into it.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

all communists-in the forest

All people that can't actually argue with their opponents' actual positions, off the thread.

[Tungookska]

We're all pro-life and we're all pro-choice; the question is if we are for or against abortion.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It's consciously attaching itself and consciously sucking.

No, it is not conscious. Neither are trees, fungii, or bacteria. My fears were confirmed. You're actually serious.