• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unique Perspective into Abortion: Crime Reducer, Pregnancy delayer, not stopper

Just so you know, this is not an argument for the pro-choice (or pro-abortion as you put it) position. For if it is so great to prevent these bad outcomes via making those people not exist, would it not also be great to make those that are currently in those bad outcomes not exist as well? If not, then you need to differentiate abortion from killing those that are already born – which is what you would have to do to support the position prior to bringing this up in the first place.


Look I assume, as I think anyone should, that most adults have a basic logic level of rationality (now clearly this is a bad assumption, obviously, not all adults become/became mental adults).


You and others take a position and run 5000 miles with it to something else when it was never that. That is something people do who don't have any actual ability to negate the issue at hand, so they run 5000 miles with it. A Goldman Sachs saying is "If you can't give them facts baffle them with bull****."

That is what you all are doing. Objective studies are produced, the causality is undeniable, and you are attempting to murkey the waters with bridges to nowhere that are based off flawed views of the world to begin with. So you're basing your baffling attempts on flawed logic that has nothing to do with cause and effect. You simply blow right past it to lunacy. This is not a rebuttable but a defeat by you all.



The irony is, you all are supporting a massively Liberal, political plantation like structure by being anti abortion. Frankly abortion is probably the only reason GOP is able to compete on a national level still to this day. It's ironic that if social conservatives had their way, GOP would already probably be a dead national party thanks to demographics without abortion. Literally the deep irony is that if it wasn't for abortion, GOP might have disbanded on a national level already. Abortion is the only thing that prevents the asylum patients from taking over the Asylum. The fact that there are conservatives actually sitting around arguing against abortion is truly stunning.
 
If there are studies available that offer a picture of child abuse by "young mothers who didn't want them" vs mothers who did want their children and yet abuse them, I'd be grateful if you'd provide them.

Realistically, your math doesn't add up: There is no way to prevent every unwanted pregnancy anymore than there is a way to keep people from having irresponsible sex. If you check the Guttmacher stats, you'll see that 46% of those who sought abortions didn't use birth control.

No one has said every unwanted pregnancy would be avoided, but a key to REDUCING the unwanted pregnancy rate, and thus the abortion rate is PREVENTION of the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Here is a very large long-term study on unwanted children it says that:

In Goteborg, 120 unwanted children were matched with 120 controls of the same sex. Individuals unwanted at conception, unwanted during gestation, and delivered after refusal of applications for abortion were at greater risk than control subjects for psychosocial problems. The unwanted children received more psychiatric attention, were more often delinquent, and did more poorly in school.

In northern Finland (Oulu and Lapland), where 12% of almost 12,000 women said the pregnancy "should not have occurred at all," many comparisons were made over time with the children of mothers who had accepted the pregnancy. At 28 days after birth, measurements revealed that unwanted babies were smaller in weight and length, and a greater proportion of them had been born prematurely. These children had a significantly higher infant mortality rate (24 deaths per 1000 births) and had higher incidences of all types of handicaps including cerebral palsy and mental retardation. At age eight, the researchers initiated a matched-pair study to compare the wanted and unwanted babies after the first year of school, and again at age 14 and 16, the last year of compulsory education in Finland. From the start, unwanted babies had a harder time in school, needed more help from teachers, and were rated poorer in verbal performance.

Follow-up at age fourteen showed the unwanted children had more than double the number of low IQ scores (under 86) as their matched pairs. Physical growth was poorer and school performance significantly lower. Finally, at sixteen years of age, unwanted children were more often reluctant to go to school, wanted to leave at the earliest possible age, and found little purpose in continuing their education. Relationships with teachers and fellow classmates were more troubled. At home, the unwanted girls felt their fathers had been less interested in them, behaved more inconsistently, and had been less involved in their upbringing, compared to their matched pairs.

In Prague, studies used a double-blind method, matched-pair controls, periodic psychological assessments, and public records. By age nine, the children born to mothers twice refused for abortion ended up requiring more medical care for acute and long-term illnesses. Mothers rated them as more stubborn, naughty, and bad-tempered. Teachers rated them lower in academic achievement. Schoolmates rejected them as friends more often than their peers. Born to ambivalent mothers, these children were more deviant, received less empathy and attention to their communications, had less warm interchanges with each other, and suffered psychological deprivation.

At age 14, school performance was worse, many opting not to continue to secondary school. Teachers rated them more hyperactive and less sociable. They felt more rejected by their mothers than did the matched-pairs; and relationships with parents deteriorated over time.

By age 23 these unwanted children showed a greater proneness to social problems, criminal activity, and had triple the amount of serious repeated offenses requiring custodial prison sentences. When questioned about their happiness and life-style they reported far more dissatisfaction, unhappiness, problems, and worries than the control children. They mentioned having poor relationships with their parents and knew that their parents were dissatisfied with them. Unwanted children reported repeated disappointments with love relationships and agreed with the statement: "love brings more trouble than pleasure."

The unwanted children of Prague, themselves breastfed for a significantly shorter time, gave the opinion that a child should be breastfed for no longer than a month at most. Unwanted children drank more black coffee, smoked more heavily, and drank larger quantities of beer than their matched pairs born at the same hospital to parents who wanted them. More of the rejected children were in psychiatric treatment. They coped less well with even minor stress than their counterparts.
 
Here is another study that found correlation between child maltreatment and access to abortion:

Child abuse and neglect is a substantial problem in the United States, with over 3 million cases of child maltreatment reported to state child protective service agencies in 1996 (Christina Paxson and Jane Waldfogel, 1999a). Neglect accounted for 58 percent of the reports, and physical abuse for about 22 percent; sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment, and other forms of child maltreatment accounted for 20 percent of reports that year. About three children die each day as a result of maltreatment (Deborah Daro and Leslie Mitchel, 1990). Paxson and Waldfogel (1999a, b) find that family structure, parental employment, and family income are related to child-maltreatment rates at the state level, with poverty rates strongly related to child-maltreatment rates; welfare beneŽfits also appear to �influence child-maltreatment rates.

Although the relationship between abortion availability and child maltreatment has not been previously investigated, previous studies suggest that abortion access affects other measures of children’s well-being. Abortion legalization in the 1970’s appears to have led to improved childhood living conditions, on average. Abortion availability is also positively associated with birth outcomes. Abortion legalization led to a decline in neonatal mortality rates (see e.g., Michael Grossman and Steven Jacobowitz 1981), and increased public funding of abortions may have led to improved birth weights and other birth outcomes (see e.g., Kenneth J. Meier and Deborah R. McFarlane,1994). Research on child abuse and fertility also suggests a link between child maltreatment and abortion availability.

In a sample of unmarried mothers receiving AFDC, child abuse and neglect are positively associated with unplanned childbearing and negatively associated with maternal age at first birth (Zuravin, 1987, 1988).Maternal age at birth is also negatively associated with the likelihood that a child is abused (Mary I. Benedict et al.,1985). If greater access to abortion delays childbearing or reduces the likelihood that a birth is unplanned, greater abortion availability could lead to lower rates of child abuse and neglect.
 
Unwanted children drank more black coffee, smoked more heavily, and drank larger quantities of beer than their matched pairs born at the same hospital to parents who wanted them.


I wonder what the black coffee has to do with anything? I drink my coffee black and I don't see why that would be a bad thing.
 
I wonder what the black coffee has to do with anything? I drink my coffee black and I don't see why that would be a bad thing.

Yeah, I'm not sure, except that it was a noted difference, I guess?
 
You are assuming we agree that an embryo or fetus is a person, and I for one do not agree. Ending a human pregnancy is ending the process of constructing a human organism for a future person, so that that organism does not get fully constructed, just as ceasing to continuing writing a book means that the book does not get fully constructed. Using contraception is preventing the process of constructing a human organism for a future person, so that that organism does not get constructed at all. But when you are talking about the already born, you are talking about human organisms that have already been constructed and have demonstrated that they can live in complete separation from the bodies of the women who constructed them and therefore that they are already persons. Those born persons do have a right to life. Similarly, once you have published a book, it is out there in the public domain, and you can't take it back.

I am assuming no such thing. I simply said to include one and exclude the other, you’d need to differentiate them. And that is exactly what you did - born=person / not born = not person (with a dash of bodily sovereignty at the end). These are the same arguments needed to support the pro-choice position whether the OP’s argument is brought up or not. Therefore, the OP’s argument is irrelevant to the abortion debate.
 
That is a nonsensical stance, since the 'end' is for women to retain reproductive rights over their own bodies. Since some people feel the need to tell women what to do with their own bodies, and to restrict reproductive rights, arguments have been presented as to how access to abortion is more beneficial than no access to abortion.

One such argument is that a product of unwanted pregnancies carried to term is unwanted children, along with all that children entail plus additional worries occurring when a child is unwanted.

Additionally, the argument seeks to ask fundamentalists who prefer no abortion ever, what should be done with the children that are the product of unwanted pregnancies. Since currently those kids commonly suffer abuses OR are raised by young women ill equipped financially or emotionally to care for them and rely on social services to help them raise their kids. PREVENTING unwanted pregnancy is a logical means to reduce the number of abortions. Since abortion serves to end an unwanted pregnancy. No unwanted pregnancy in the first place means no abortion.

And here we are basically just restating the same type of argument as in the OP. Again, I am saying that all of the arguments to show benefits of abortion are irrelevant to the abortion debate. I am not bothering with whether they are true or not because it doesn’t matter. You can get the same benefits by killing the kids after they are born (with the added benefit of already knowing they are in the situation you want to prevent). However, that does nothing to show that killing the kids is an acceptable solution even if it has those benefits. And so it is with abortion – the benefits do not prove the acceptability of it. You still need to use sovereignty and/or personhood (lack thereof) arguments to show acceptability regardless of the benefits. In fact, anyone stating that they embrace the pro-choice stance on the basis of the benefits arguments is essentially admitting to confirmation bias as to abortion’s acceptability.
 
Look I assume, as I think anyone should, that most adults have a basic logic level of rationality (now clearly this is a bad assumption, obviously, not all adults become/became mental adults).


You and others take a position and run 5000 miles with it to something else when it was never that. That is something people do who don't have any actual ability to negate the issue at hand, so they run 5000 miles with it. A Goldman Sachs saying is "If you can't give them facts baffle them with bull****."

That is what you all are doing. Objective studies are produced, the causality is undeniable, and you are attempting to murkey the waters with bridges to nowhere that are based off flawed views of the world to begin with. So you're basing your baffling attempts on flawed logic that has nothing to do with cause and effect. You simply blow right past it to lunacy. This is not a rebuttable but a defeat by you all.



The irony is, you all are supporting a massively Liberal, political plantation like structure by being anti abortion. Frankly abortion is probably the only reason GOP is able to compete on a national level still to this day. It's ironic that if social conservatives had their way, GOP would already probably be a dead national party thanks to demographics without abortion. Literally the deep irony is that if it wasn't for abortion, GOP might have disbanded on a national level already. Abortion is the only thing that prevents the asylum patients from taking over the Asylum. The fact that there are conservatives actually sitting around arguing against abortion is truly stunning.

Translation: I don’t understand it; therefore it must be total BS.

Maybe you can read my previous two posts above to see if you can at least understand what I’m saying. There are all sorts of facts you can find that are irrelevant to the abortion debate. Also, your GOP survival argument has as much relevance to the abortion debate as the OP argument. The former is a much worse argument mind you, but the relevance is on par.
 
I am assuming no such thing. I simply said to include one and exclude the other, you’d need to differentiate them. And that is exactly what you did - born=person / not born = not person (with a dash of bodily sovereignty at the end). These are the same arguments needed to support the pro-choice position whether the OP’s argument is brought up or not. Therefore, the OP’s argument is irrelevant to the abortion debate.

They were differentiated.

And yes the unborn are not considered persons under US law.
But that does not make the OPs argument irrelevalate to the abortion issue.
It is just an added or another reason the OP supports the pro choice position.

There are many reasons a woman might choose not to continue a pregnancy.
Being faced with life long poverty if she continued the pregnancy might play very heavily into her decision.
 
They were differentiated.

And yes the unborn are not considered persons under US law.
But that does not make the OPs argument irrelevalate to the abortion issue.
It is just an added or another reason the OP supports the pro choice position.

There are many reasons a woman might choose not to continue a pregnancy.
Being faced with life long poverty if she continued the pregnancy might play very heavily into her decision.

But that differentiation is what the abortion debate is all about. The OP is fine as simply “another reason” (although OP appears to state it as a primary reason) but it doesn’t support the position in the debate itself. Read post #57 – stating these benefits of abortion does nothing to support its acceptability. These benefits can also be gained via killing the already born – yet the ends don’t justify the means in that case. Therefore, the OP (and arguments in the same vein) all hinge on the means of abortion being different than killing the born, but demonstrating that to someone’s liking means that they are already pro-choice irrespective of the OP.
 
But that differentiation is what the abortion debate is all about. The OP is fine as simply “another reason” (although OP appears to state it as a primary reason) but it doesn’t support the position in the debate itself. Read post #57 – stating these benefits of abortion does nothing to support its acceptability. These benefits can also be gained via killing the already born – yet the ends don’t justify the means in that case. Therefore, the OP (and arguments in the same vein) all hinge on the means of abortion being different than killing the born, but demonstrating that to someone’s liking means that they are already pro-choice irrespective of the OP.

And the way to prevent all wars is to kill of all humankind.
Yet we still discuss other means trying to prevent wars.
 
And the way to prevent all wars is to kill of all humankind.
Yet we still discuss other means trying to prevent wars.

Exactly! This is how you react to the thought of killing the born to solve the issues in the OP (crime, etc.). And that is pretty much the reaction you should expect to the OP itself from someone that is pro-life because it is no different for them. So, the OP is thoroughly unconvincing unless you already see a difference between abortion and killing already born children (i.e. you are already pro-choice).
 
Parasitic actions are parasitic, regardless if performed by a true parasite, or by any other type of organism. And since those actions are generally unacceptable, they can be specifically unacceptable whenever one chooses. So, in the cases of women seeking abortions, they can, perfectly ethically, choose to refuse to accept the parasitic actions of the unborn they carry.

Is it ethical to kill your own offspring? The answer is clearly no, so all arguments to the contrary are entirely moot.


Therefore you care nothing about the consequences, of causing extra/unnecessary emotional suffering whenever a Perfectly Natural Miscarriage occurs. All because you choose to tell a Partial Lie, instead of the whole truth. I repeat: "Shame on you!"

The words "unborn child" causes no suffering to anyone.

FALSE. The ethical rules of society are designed to promote the long-term peaceful survival of that society. It cannot do it if it is overrun with mouths that can't be fed. Period. Fortunately, since it is Scientific Fact that unborn humans are mere animals, killing them when unwanted is harmless to society. (I'll paraphrase something from another message: If you Abortion Opponents want them so badly to be born, why don't you put your money where your mouths are, and pay for them???" The primary Answer, so far, to that Question, is, "Most Abortion Opponents are actually a bunch of stupid hypocrites, wanting other people to pay for what they, the Abortion Opponents, want".)

How do you promote the peaceful condition with unneeded violence? You aren't making any sense. Btw, is it fine to kill mere animals for no reason? Your ethics appear to be non-existent.

YOUR MISINTERPRETATIONS WILL GET YOU NOWHERE. I simply indicated a parallel between parasitism and lack of rights, in two different situations. Abortion Opponents stupidly want to grant parasitic animal organisms personhood rights, in spite of both the Scientific Facts and the legal parallel I pointed out.

Your legal parallel showed a clear misunderstanding of rights and your scientific understanding appears to be entirely rooted on it being parasitic. Not every convincing on either front.
 
And here we are basically just restating the same type of argument as in the OP. Again, I am saying that all of the arguments to show benefits of abortion are irrelevant to the abortion debate. I am not bothering with whether they are true or not because it doesn’t matter. You can get the same benefits by killing the kids after they are born (with the added benefit of already knowing they are in the situation you want to prevent). However, that does nothing to show that killing the kids is an acceptable solution even if it has those benefits. And so it is with abortion – the benefits do not prove the acceptability of it. You still need to use sovereignty and/or personhood (lack thereof) arguments to show acceptability regardless of the benefits. In fact, anyone stating that they embrace the pro-choice stance on the basis of the benefits arguments is essentially admitting to confirmation bias as to abortion’s acceptability.

No, I don't, since my stance is that a woman should at all times be in charge of her own reproductive health decisions. As such, abortion should remain an option if a woman and her doctor decide it is the appropriate course of action in her situation. I don't deny that a fetus is a human life. I understand that abortion is killing a human life. It is an exception I'm ok with making, much like the death penalty and physician assisted suicide for those people who have determined that their quality of life is so eroded they'd like to end it. I also think there is an obvious difference between not allowing a human life to fully begin and killing a child already brought into this world. It is a silly extrapolation and conjecture with no basis in fact, just an emotional appeal.

As far as the benefits of abortion, they are secondary gains to the primary gain of a woman maintaining reproductive rights over her own body.
 
No, I don't, since my stance is that a woman should at all times be in charge of her own reproductive health decisions. As such, abortion should remain an option if a woman and her doctor decide it is the appropriate course of action in her situation. I don't deny that a fetus is a human life. I understand that abortion is killing a human life. It is an exception I'm ok with making, much like the death penalty and physician assisted suicide for those people who have determined that their quality of life is so eroded they'd like to end it. I also think there is an obvious difference between not allowing a human life to fully begin and killing a child already brought into this world. It is a silly extrapolation and conjecture with no basis in fact, just an emotional appeal.

As far as the benefits of abortion, they are secondary gains to the primary gain of a woman maintaining reproductive rights over her own body.

What is the “No, I don’t” to? What don’t you need to do? At first I thought it was that you don’t need to, as I said, “use sovereignty and/or personhood (lack thereof) arguments to show acceptability”. But that can’t be it because that’s exactly what you did. You went with the sovereignty argument AND threw in a personhood argument (unborn is “a human life” that didn’t “fully begin”). In any case, I’m glad that the benefits to abortion arguments are only secondary – they shouldn’t be part of the debate.
 
Well , I know I am probably in the minority but I did obey the drinking age law.
In fact as far as I know I never intentionally broke any laws.
I have caught myself going a little over the sped limit at times but it was not done intentionally.

Well it appears you are different person than I am. I broke drinking age laws by the time I was fourteen and never thought a thing about it being wrong. As for speed limits, I'm actually pretty good about that, but not because I respect the law or care about it, but just that I have no reason to care one way or the other. Though I can't say I have never intentionally broke speed limit laws. When you find yourself on a deserted stretch of road out in the middle of no where it can be enticing.
 
Is it ethical to kill your own offspring? The answer is clearly no, so all arguments to the contrary are entirely moot.
FALSE. The "ethics" you are promoting cannot work if every pregnancy is required to result in birth. The point of this Message Thread is that excess unwanted births leads to significant social problems. While crime was specifically listed, there is also starvation --how can it be "ethical" to require pregnancies to result in birth when there is so much hunger right here in the USA, to say nothing of the rest of the world? The stupid worthless Hypocrisy of Abortion Opponents is revealed once again --make them be born, but care nothing about what happens to them afterward! Next, it is perfectly Natural for organisms to kill their offspring, one way or another, on occasion. Guppies and other fish are known to eat their offspring, for example. Kangaroos routinely do "fetal resorption" when the environmental conditions are inconvenient.

So, since it is already is perfectly Natural for the unborn to be killed when conditions are not right for supporting them, any human seeking an abortion for an equivalent reason is actually working with Nature, not against it! How is it "ethical" to go up against Nature for purely selfish reasons ("I want to pass my genes on.")? Don't you understand that Nature responds to an overpopulated species by subjecting it to a Malthusian Catastrophe, and humans are not immune to that???

The words "unborn child" causes no suffering to anyone.
FALSE, ABOUT 1/6 OR 1/7 OF THE TIME. That's the Natural rate of miscarriages, after pregnancy is confirmed. By lying to pregnant women, not telling them the Whole Truth, that pregnancy is a very complex process where Murphy's Law is a factor, you "set them up", psychologically, for a greater "fall" whenever miscarriage happens. "Oh, you have a baby!" Later: "Oh, too bad, you lost the baby." WRONG! "You have a baby under construction, and the process might fail to be completed properly, thanks to Murphy's Law, no matter what you do to help the construction process." That is the CORRECT TRUTH. By lying, claiming that a woman already "has" a complete baby or child, you give her a sense of ownership --and therefore you cause a sense of loss if a miscarriage occurs. By NOT lying, you can avoid promoting a sense of ownership, because Murphy's Law does indeed have a say in the outcome, and so the sense of loss can be minimized when a miscarriage occurs.

And because you can't know in advance who would be hurt by your Heinous Partial-Truth Lie, it is important to never tell that lie. Simple!

How do you promote the peaceful condition with unneeded violence? You aren't making any sense. Btw, is it fine to kill mere animals for no reason? Your ethics appear to be non-existent.
I NEVER SPECIFIED "NO REASON", for any sort of killing. Stop telling stupid lies.


Your legal parallel showed a clear misunderstanding of rights and your scientific understanding appears to be entirely rooted on it being parasitic. Not every convincing on either front.
I don't have to convince you; facts are facts. If you ignore facts, then any conclusion you make that should have incorporated those facts, such as your conclusion to oppose abortion, is stupid.
 
What is the “No, I don’t” to? What don’t you need to do? At first I thought it was that you don’t need to, as I said, “use sovereignty and/or personhood (lack thereof) arguments to show acceptability”. But that can’t be it because that’s exactly what you did. You went with the sovereignty argument AND threw in a personhood argument (unborn is “a human life” that didn’t “fully begin”). In any case, I’m glad that the benefits to abortion arguments are only secondary – they shouldn’t be part of the debate.

I meant that I don't have to engage in the "personhood" argument as I understood you to mean the tired argument about whether or not the fetus has personhood. My argument is solely that a woman ought to have sole rights to determining her reproductive health. I don't deny that a fetus is "human life."
 
...


FALSE, ABOUT 1/6 OR 1/7 OF THE TIME. That's the Natural rate of miscarriages, after pregnancy is confirmed. By lying to pregnant women, not telling them the Whole Truth, that pregnancy is a very complex process where Murphy's Law is a factor, you "set them up", psychologically, for a greater "fall" whenever miscarriage happens. "Oh, you have a baby!" Later: "Oh, too bad, you lost the baby." WRONG! "You have a baby under construction, and the process might fail to be completed properly, thanks to Murphy's Law, no matter what you do to help the construction process." That is the CORRECT TRUTH. By lying, claiming that a woman already "has" a complete baby or child, you give her a sense of ownership --and therefore you cause a sense of loss if a miscarriage occurs. By NOT lying, you can avoid promoting a sense of ownership, because Murphy's Law does indeed have a say in the outcome, and so the sense of loss can be minimized when a miscarriage occurs.

And because you can't know in advance who would be hurt by your Heinous Partial-Truth Lie, it is important to never tell that lie. Simple!
.

I agree.
I had 6 pregnancies.
I have 4 children.
I had 2 miscarriages.
They were not children they were fetuses that miscarried.

There is an old saying that a farmer never counts his chickens until they hatch.
The same is very true for human pregnancies.
There is no child/ baby/ person until birth.
 
I agree.
I had 6 pregnancies.
I have 4 children.
I had 2 miscarriages.
They were not children they were fetuses that miscarried.

There is an old saying that a farmer never counts his chickens until they hatch.
The same is very true for human pregnancies.
There is no child/ baby/ person until birth.

What about babies who die during birth? Do they get to be persons too? If they die on the wrong side, they aren't persons, but if they make it out alive and then die, they are?
 
What about babies who die during birth? Do they get to be persons too? If they die on the wrong side, they aren't persons, but if they make it out alive and then die, they are?

There are stillborns.
They are considered stillborn babies and are considered persons.
And yes of course all born alive even if they die shortly afterwards are considered persons.
 
What about before being delivered--say, an hour before? Or a day before? And I ask because I have read elsewhere the argument that until safely delivered on the correct side of the magic birth canal they were never alive, aren't human, and aren't persons.
 
What about babies who die during birth? Do they get to be persons too? If they die on the wrong side, they aren't persons, but if they make it out alive and then die, they are?

The fetuses that die before they have a chance to be born are not persons / babies or children.
They are fetuses that failed to fully develop.
 
Birth is often referred to as a miracle and it really is.
Every time a heathy baby is born to a healthy mother in my extended family and circle of friends I always say a prayer of thanks.
When so many things can go wrong during the delvelopment of a fetus a healthy outcome for both mother and child is indeed
a miracle.
 
Is it fine to kill mere animals for no reason?

It's fine to kill mere animals for population control and to save money like we do already with various other species of animals that actually have mental capabilities. So obviously we would have no problem killing something else for those same reasons that fit the same characteristics like ordinary animals.
 
Back
Top Bottom