- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,655
- Reaction score
- 75,593
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Nobody celebrates an abortion. We are not morbid. Do people celebrate funerals??
An abortion happens wheb unhappy women who are living miserable lives somehow make the decision killing a fetus is the answer.
It is quite sad and terrible.
LOL
Women enjoying sex and accidentally getting pregnant are "living miserable lives?" Quite the delusion there.
However an abortion may enable them to avoid a miserable life in the future, for themselves and their families.
And being a parent when not ready hurts children..." friend"
NITPICK: sometimes a fetus is female. You really should have used the word "woman" or "person" (a fetus is never either), instead of "female".
Quite so, it's better just to kill them before you hurt them, lol.
LOL
Women enjoying sex and accidentally getting pregnant are "living miserable lives?" Quite the delusion there.
However an abortion may enable them to avoid a miserable life in the future, for themselves and their families.
I thought you said abortions were unwanted?
NOT JUST HUMAN NATURE. You are not looking at a Big Enough Picture. All through Nature most species routinely generate more offspring than can be supported by Nature --and therefore most offspring Naturally die or get killed. A pair of oysters might have as many as 100 million offspring over several breeding seasons, but only 2 or 3 of them (as in "just plain ordinary two or three") are likely to survive to eventually have offspring themselves.They are unwanted through human nature.
YOUR IGNORANCE GETS YOU NOWHERE. You cannot support that claim with the slightest bit of Objectively Verifiable Evidence. It is very Natural for life-forms to have offspring. It is Human-Natural to understand consequences of actions! And, often, to make Choices regarding those consequences. If you build a house that gets struck by lightning and burns to the ground, do you rebuild it or do you build in a different place? We know that different storms yield lightnings that usually strike different places, so it is probably safe enough to rebuild the house in the original place. But what if a flood had destroyed the house, instead? We know that floods usually strike the same places, and so building in a different place would be the wiser choice.It is not human natures intent
NOT JUST HUMAN NATURE. You are not looking at a Big Enough Picture. All through Nature most species routinely generate more offspring than can be supported by Nature --and therefore most offspring Naturally die or get killed. A pair of oysters might have as many as 100 million offspring over several breeding seasons, but only 2 or 3 of them (as in "just plain ordinary two or three") are likely to survive to eventually have offspring themselves.
THEREFORE WHEN HUMANS ABORT OFFSPRING, that Choice can very often be traced to a lack of resources for supporting offspring (not to mention that that lack is often caused by abortion opponents). The key difference is that humans simply have greater ability (than oysters or most other species) to understand Natural phenomena such as the huge normal death rate for the offspring of most species.
FACT: Biologically, humans are not significantly more special than any other species. Humans are known to be susceptible to delusions of grandeur on that topic, but Facts are Facts --it is not human BIOLOGY that makes humans special. Meanwhile, Evolution has largely focused on biological interactions between species (eating, for example, involves accessing edible things, usually other life-forms).
YOUR IGNORANCE GETS YOU NOWHERE. You cannot support that claim with the slightest bit of Objectively Verifiable Evidence. It is very Natural for life-forms to have offspring. It is Human-Natural to understand consequences of actions! And, often, to make Choices regarding those consequences. If you build a house that gets struck by lightning and burns to the ground, do you rebuild it or do you build in a different place? We know that different storms yield lightnings that usually strike different places, so it is probably safe enough to rebuild the house in the original place. But what if a flood had destroyed the house, instead? We know that floods usually strike the same places, and so building in a different place would be the wiser choice.
WITH RESPECT TO OFFSPRING, humans know they cannot survive without lots of support. Plus, we know that the world is overpopulated with humans, such that the more there are, the more difficult it is to obtain resources to support even-more humans. And we know that 2/3 of all human offspring Naturally die before birth. AND we know that the species is in no danger of extinction from a too-small gene pool.
THEREFORE ABORTION IS A TOTALLY RATIONAL OPTION. I've challenged various abortion opponents to provide even one reason why an average unborn human must survive in this day-and-age, and so far not a single reason has yet been offered. Will you be the first? (You can ignore the 2/3 that Naturally die before birth, and focus on the roughly 150 million pregnancies every year that don't Naturally miscarry. Otherwise the "average" unborn human would be included in the 2/3 that Naturally die!)
THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP BLATHERING STUPID LIES? Is it because the only places you "research" are biased anti-abortion sources?I have actually done the research and don't get my answers from the clouds.
AND HOW DOES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES FOR SUPPORTING OFFSPRING? Consider a rich person, who could pay for all the resources imaginable, including things like a wet nurse and a nanny and multiple private tutors. Does the average woman living in a ghetto have those resources? No? Then why do you separate "convenience" from "resources"???The majority reason why women have an abortion is because they feel the baby would be an inconvenience to them.
OTHER FACTORS UNRELATED TO RESOURCES. First and foremost, offspring require resources. Period. And all through Nature, offspring die when resources are inadequate.Perhaps they have a boyfriend that threatened to leave them, a boss that wouldn't promote them, etc..
ANOTHER STUPID LIE. There are thousands every year. However, when speaking relative to abortions for other reasons, medically necessary abortions are indeed comparatively rare.The number of "medically necessary" abortions are few to none.
SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE GLAD OF. After all, to whatever extent "vanity" has a genetic component, those women are slowly weeding it out of the population!In fact, the number of women that get an abortion because they don't want stretch marks or lose their figure is significantly higher than medically necessary abortions.
They are unwanted through human nature. It is not human natures intent for an abortion to be aborted. It takes an evil force again, for a mother to actually want to kill her children. Something has gone wrong, very very wrong.
Look at the animal kingdom.
They are unwanted through human nature. It is not human natures intent for an abortion to be aborted. It takes an evil force again, for a mother to actually want to kill her children. Something has gone wrong, very very wrong.
Look at the animal kingdom.
The number of "medically necessary" abortions are few to none. In fact, the number of women that get an abortion because they don't want stretch marks or lose their figure is significantly higher than medically necessary abortions.
I have actually done the research and don't get my answers from the clouds.
The majority reason why women have an abortion is because they feel the baby would be an inconvenience to them. Perhaps they have a boyfriend that threatened to leave them, a boss that wouldn't promote them, etc..
The number of "medically necessary" abortions are few to none. In fact, the number of women that get an abortion because they don't want stretch marks or lose their figure is significantly higher than medically necessary abortions.
Saves the kid from a terrible life at least...
By killing them, yes. Not really the most convincing argument out there.
What's wrong with it?
A STUPID LIE. No unborn human is capable of qualifying as a "someone". The Fact Is (because scientific stuff is different from legal stuff), persons are made, not born, and the conversion of a human animal into a human person happens significantly after birth, and this is what happens when the conversion process is botched by ignorant abortion opponents who think that "normal human development is automatic when left alone".Killing someone
EXACTLY. Your anti-abortion argument is exactly that. Just like every other idiotic/worthless anti-abortion argument out there, relative to this day-and-age.It's a **** argument.
NONE OF WHICH, FROM ABORTION OPPONENTS, ARE WORTH THE MENTAL EFFORT IT TOOK TO DEVISE THEM. There is NO Objectively Valid rationale to oppose abortion in this day-and-age.There's plenty of other arguments to be made,
Nobody celebrates an abortion. We are not morbid. Do people celebrate funerals??
An abortion happens wheb unhappy women who are living miserable lives somehow make the decision killing a fetus is the answer.
It is quite sad and terrible.
Adoption can do the trick.
Killing someone because you'd do a bad job and make their life terrible? It's a **** argument. There's plenty of other arguments to be made, but to say "Well I'd do a bad job and make their life bad, so might as well kill them instead" is just about as intellectually lazy and ignorant of an argument one could make.
It's implied that they wouldnt give it up for adoption and would indeed make it's life a living hell. So yes, I'd consider never having that kid rather than that alternative. I see nothing wrong with that choice, if that is the mental perspective of the woman/couple. As a matter of fact, I do think it's for the best.
It just opens up a lot of other options. If one is going to be bad at something and in the commission of being bad at it, makes someone else's life worse; then it's better to just kill the other. That's the premise of this "better dead than possibly not chipper" argument.
As I said, there's plenty of other arguments to be had, but that specific argument is complete crap.
Why does it open up options for other people? Please explain that.
It's a personal decision that has very negative consequences for the mother, possibly a father, and it seems that the consequences for the unborn are negative either way.
Abortion is pretty specific. Pregnancy risks the life of the woman, for one thing.
I think what you're implying is that quality of life doenst matter, everyone is better off born. And that's not necessarily everyone's perspective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?