Unwanted children are a burden on society
We could just buy a one way ticket for all those folks that complain that some other country's laws are better. If you like the healthcare in France? Au Revoir; better gun laws in Australia G'day mate, etc.My support of abortion rights is predominantly pragmatic. Unwanted children are a burden on society: our foster care and public schools systems are already underfunded and failing in many areas. Without proper care, such children are likely to grow up emotionally disturbed or with educational deficiencies or delinquent, imposing further burdens on society. I believe it was Freakanomics that posited that there was a correlation between Roe v Wade and the modern decrease in crime we have experienced since the 80s. Whether you believe that or not, it cannot be denied that dealing with children who are not wanted by their parents comes at a significant cost in an already overpopulated world.
Second, I simply do not feel that termination of a fetus — a small collection of human cells which in its earliest stages is far less complex than the trees we cut down at will or the flies we squash without a second thought, and which even in intermediate stages is still far less complex than animals we breed and slaughter for meet and clothing — is an inherently unjustifiable act.
But controversial as these opinions may be, and I know how passionately many will disagree, I am more curious to know what pro-lifers’ views are on the practical problems that anti-abortion policy presents. What alternatives policies would you support to control out-of-control population in a world where the need for human labor is becoming less and less critical, and yet more and more people are being born? Where overpopulation is already destroying our environment and creating friction between expanding cultures?
We could just buy a one way ticket for all those folks that complain that some other country's laws are better. If you like the healthcare in France? Au Revoir; better gun laws in Australia G'day mate, etc.
Maybe just ship all socialists to the Scandinavian country of their choice, or Venezuela if they'd prefer.
That should give us plenty of elbow room.
It's already legal here. Why would we ship them out?Does that also apply to people who complain about abortion being legal? Should they be shipped off to a country where it's not?
It's already legal here. Why would we ship them out?
Sorry if reality disconcerts you. It's still reality in any case.All I can do is smh.
All I can do is smh.
We could just buy a one way ticket for all those folks that complain that some other country's laws are better. If you like the healthcare in France? Au Revoir; better gun laws in Australia G'day mate, etc.
Maybe just ship all socialists to the Scandinavian country of their choice, or Venezuela if they'd prefer.
That should give us plenty of elbow room.
OP posts an unsupported conclusion: who is using abortion for population control?
My support of abortion rights is predominantly pragmatic.........
My support of abortion rights is predominantly pragmatic. Unwanted children are a burden on society: our foster care and public schools systems are already underfunded and failing in many areas. Without proper care, such children are likely to grow up emotionally disturbed or with educational deficiencies or delinquent, imposing further burdens on society. I believe it was Freakanomics that posited that there was a correlation between Roe v Wade and the modern decrease in crime we have experienced since the 80s. Whether you believe that or not, it cannot be denied that dealing with children who are not wanted by their parents comes at a significant cost in an already overpopulated world.
Second, I simply do not feel that termination of a fetus — a small collection of human cells which in its earliest stages is far less complex than the trees we cut down at will or the flies we squash without a second thought, and which even in intermediate stages is still far less complex than animals we breed and slaughter for meet and clothing — is an inherently unjustifiable act.
But controversial as these opinions may be, and I know how passionately many will disagree, I am more curious to know what pro-lifers’ views are on the practical problems that anti-abortion policy presents. What alternatives policies would you support to control out-of-control population in a world where the need for human labor is becoming less and less critical, and yet more and more people are being born? Where overpopulation is already destroying our environment and creating friction between expanding cultures?
I’m not anti-abortion. I’m pro-choice. Once it’s been determined the the babies choice has been adhered to, go ahead and save the child, but off the mother. Just because she wishes to kill, doesn’t mean there’s only two options, but instead three.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
The problem with that is that you might as well say, why not infanticide? Why not kill kids under 3 years old? Why not kill all the homeless? Why not kill the disabled who are only a drag on society? Its all quite pragmatic after all.
Why? Because it would be immoral to murder infants, youngsters, the disabled or the homeless, thats why.
Well, it is just as immoral to murder those who are three months after conception as it is to murder those who are three years after conception. There is no difference. NO difference.
Sorry if reality disconcerts you. It's still reality in any case.
I’m not anti-abortion. I’m pro-choice.
If the point is you drizzling cryptic one-liners, I got that. IF you have a point about what I said, say it.You really, really, really missed the point.
interesting. So is it also immoral to kill cows, pigs, chickens, and trees? All of which are far more complex and intelligent forms of life than a first trimester fetus. The line of pragmatism has to be drawn somewhere, and the distinction between a live baby and a pea-sized collection of cells is broad.The problem with that is that you might as well say, why not infanticide? Why not kill kids under 3 years old? Why not kill all the homeless? Why not kill the disabled who are only a drag on society? Its all quite pragmatic after all.
Why? Because it would be immoral to murder infants, youngsters, the disabled or the homeless, thats why.
Well, it is just as immoral to murder those who are three months after conception as it is to murder those who are three years after conception. There is no difference. NO difference.
interesting. So is it also immoral to kill cows, pigs, chickens, and trees? All of which are far more complex and intelligent forms of life than a first trimester fetus. The line of pragmatism has to be drawn somewhere, and the distinction between a live baby and a pea-sized collection of cells is broad.
And, you know, the ability to think, move, sense or feel.The only difference between a "collection of cells" and a baby is the latter has the usual baby cute looks.
And, you know, the ability to think, move, sense or feel.
If the point is you drizzling cryptic one-liners, I got that. IF you have a point about what I said, say it.
We could just buy a one way ticket for all those folks that complain that some other country's laws are better. If you like the healthcare in France? Au Revoir; better gun laws in Australia G'day mate, etc.
Maybe just ship all socialists to the Scandinavian country of their choice, or Venezuela if they'd prefer.
Does that also apply to people who complain about abortion being legal? Should they be shipped off to a country where it's not?
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?