Another claim for abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter da_nolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

da_nolo

Guest
Came upon this in an online forum that my cousin e-mailed me bout. little difficult to approach as there is not supporting evidence.
Some of the worst humanitarian disasters of the past half century were strongly exacerbated by overpopulation, leading to unsustainable agriculture or simple starvation during downturns in rain etc… in addition they often led to increasingly unstable political disasters. It’s no coincidence that predominantly Catholic nations such as Rwanda experienced more than doubling of their populations as clean water and sanitation became available only to find themselves unable to feed their burgeoning populations with local foods, a man-made ecological disaster trying to feed everyone and lacking ability to import more food. While that’s certainly not the whole story, the ecological impact from rapidly increased population played a huge role in the political climate.
Click to expand...
Time and time again, when reproductive choices have become available and acceptable, women choice to have smaller families, population growth flattens and oftentimes to the benefit of those nations who now have time to build sustainable agriculture or wealth to store, import food.
Click to expand...
Above is all just one big “claim.” My cousin said he is unable to ask - but bla bla bla, I don’t care about that part. so - what are some thoughts on here?
 
“overpopulation” is just a blank check people use to do awful things.

The German Nazis and The Japanese Imperialists used fear of overpopulation as an excuse to take over the world and commit wholesale slaughter against those they considered “inferior”.

In The Irish Famine, Ireland’s Colonial Masters in Britain denied the starving Irish relief AND prevented forign nations from sending supplies to them. They claimed that the physical evil of famine and death was preferable to the “moral evil” of Irishmen whose culture did not fit Anglican British Standards.

In China, women are regularly forced to get abortions whether they want to or not because fear of overpopulation allows the government there to enact an evil One-Child Policy.
 
It is greed and the desire for power that causes problems…and all the rest of the capital sins.

If more and more people picked up their cross and followed Jesus, virtue would flourish.
 
da_nolo said:
Came upon this in an online forum that my cousin e-mailed me bout. little difficult to approach as there is not supporting evidence.

Above is all just one big “claim.” My cousin said he is unable to ask - but bla bla bla, I don’t care about that part. so - what are some thoughts on here?
Click to expand...
If those guys were really that worried about it. Really that keen on correcting for overpopulation. They should be the first to volunteer. They should be the first to give up their positions. Their space on the planet. Instead of championing the murder of babies. Just so they can watch their big screen TV. And eat their chips. Without having to make room for anyone else. Or something.

Peace.

-Trident
 
I’m not going to go hunting links and quotes at the moment, but I’ve been hearing for years that most Western countries would be losing population if it weren’t for immigration, as a result of women’s choice to have smaller families.

We have sunk below replacement rates. A number of countries in Europe have actually had to begin offering financial incentives to try to GET women to have more children, as a result, so clearly their leaders DON’T think these smaller families (or nonexistent families) have been better for their countries.

It’s been pretty obvious for a long time in the United States that we are approaching a crisis as we have a burgeoning elderly population and a smaller work force to support them through social security payments, ratio wise, than we once did. Of course this is a financial hardship on the younger people in the work force.
 
Trident_H said:
If those guys were really that worried about it. Really that keen on correcting for overpopulation. They should be the first to volunteer. They should be the first to give up their positions. Their space on the planet. Instead of championing the murder of babies. Just so they can watch their big screen TV. And eat their chips. Without having to make room for anyone else. Or something.

Peace.

-Trident
Click to expand...
Exactly, it’s all well and good for them to say what they do, but I bet if it were their own lives in question, the tables would turn real quick.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
It’s just like The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien, I believe we should stand up against such evil philosophies and retort as Faramir did to his father “I would not use the ring, not if Minas Tirith were falling in ruin and I alone could save her.”

youtube.com/watch?v=4xsdTEJWitM

In the same way, I would never condone abortion, not if our nation would fall into ruin and this alone could save it.

"Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination . . . "
  • St Pope John Paul II
I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Trident_H said:
If those guys were really that worried about it. Really that keen on correcting for overpopulation. They should be the first to volunteer. They should be the first to give up their positions. Their space on the planet. Instead of championing the murder of babies. Just so they can watch their big screen TV. And eat their chips. Without having to make room for anyone else. Or something.

Peace.

-Trident
Click to expand...
I think this answer is effective and provocative. It forces the claimant to explain why sacrificing their own lives is not a solution, but why sacrificing another’s life against his/her will is.

See also Replies to Planned Parenthood arguments. 😉
 
da_nolo said:
Came upon this in an online forum that my cousin e-mailed me bout. little difficult to approach as there is not supporting evidence.

Above is all just one big “claim.” My cousin said he is unable to ask - but bla bla bla, I don’t care about that part. so - what are some thoughts on here?
Click to expand...
The claim is in a sense absolutely correct.

If you kill people, they cannot at a later time suffer or cause suffering. Especially, if you kill people before they have developed the ability to suffer and to act, e.g. before about 8-12 weeks gestation, you are guaranteed that this human neither suffered nor caused sufferring.

I am just confused, that people claiming such things, normally fail to arrive at the logical conclusion:

Not only abort every single child, but just kill anyone; then there is no suffering and no crime anymore and the world is perfect. And with nuclear weapons that actually might be achievable.

Or in other words, while the claim is somewhat correct, it is ultimately choosing despair, destruction and death to approach the world with a “better to abort a child than to risk that it might suffer in his life”.

Furthermore, the claim is only partly correct, because in Europe and North America, population growth flattened long before legal birth control and abortion and societies became somewhat wealthy also beforehand; hence, will killing innocent and defenseless humans might be helpful for a society to get “rich”, it is also possible without killing innocent and defenseless humans.

And whenever Option A includes “killing defenseless and innocent humans” and Option B has at least a chance to avoid that point and is somewhat tolerable otherwise, you choose option B, no matter what.
 
carn said:
The claim is in a sense absolutely correct.

If you kill people, they cannot at a later time suffer or cause suffering. Especially, if you kill people before they have developed the ability to suffer and to act, e.g. before about 8-12 weeks gestation, you are guaranteed that this human neither suffered nor caused sufferring.

I am just confused, that people claiming such things, normally fail to arrive at the logical conclusion:

Not only abort every single child, but just kill anyone; then there is no suffering and no crime anymore and the world is perfect. And with nuclear weapons that actually might be achievable.

Or in other words, while the claim is somewhat correct, it is ultimately choosing despair, destruction and death to approach the world with a “better to abort a child than to risk that it might suffer in his life”.

Furthermore, the claim is only partly correct, because in Europe and North America, population growth flattened long before legal birth control and abortion and societies became somewhat wealthy also beforehand; hence, will killing innocent and defenseless humans might be helpful for a society to get “rich”, it is also possible without killing innocent and defenseless humans.

And whenever Option A includes “killing defenseless and innocent humans” and Option B has at least a chance to avoid that point and is somewhat tolerable otherwise, you choose option B, no matter what.
Click to expand...
Well, shocking as it may be, ( I only learned this recently), there has been calls to make it legal to kill already born children, up to a certain age I believe, I had no idea about this…but really what do people expect, in a society where killing (abortion) is legalized and OK, what difference does age matter, if you are OK with killing at a certain stage/age, then killing in general should be no big deal.
 
mikekle said:
Well, shocking as it may be, ( I only learned this recently), there has been calls to make it legal to kill already born children, up to a certain age I believe, I had no idea about this…but really what do people expect, in a society where killing (abortion) is legalized and OK, what difference does age matter, if you are OK with killing at a certain stage/age, then killing in general should be no big deal.
Click to expand...
Calls?

Belgium officially legalized it at least in cases when the child is deemed to be terminal ill by a doctor. While this sounds to be a sort of limitation, its actually meaningless, since netherlands the law does not allow euthanasia of children but it is done without punishment anyway as long as the Groningen protocol is not violated, a protocol devised by doctors in favor of child euthanasia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_euthanasia#Belgium

Legally it would start to get “funny” if parents with an obviously ill child behave supeiciously when traveling to netherlands/belgium; is the police allowed to stop them and take child into custody? Even if they did go there for euthanasia, they didn’t plan to do anything illegal in Netherlads/Belgium; could they be prosecuted for killing/attempted killing? What if a government gets information that a child being a citizen is in Beligum/Netherlands and will be killed soon, diplomatic protest note? sanctions for not protecting foreign citizens? special forces to save the child?

The scenarios are endless and rather “interesting”.
 
carn said:
Calls?

Belgium officially legalized it at least in cases when the child is deemed to be terminal ill by a doctor. While this sounds to be a sort of limitation, its actually meaningless, since netherlands the law does not allow euthanasia of children but it is done without punishment anyway as long as the Groningen protocol is not violated, a protocol devised by doctors in favor of child euthanasia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_euthanasia#Belgium

Legally it would start to get “funny” if parents with an obviously ill child behave supeiciously when traveling to netherlands/belgium; is the police allowed to stop them and take child into custody? Even if they did go there for euthanasia, they didn’t plan to do anything illegal in Netherlads/Belgium; could they be prosecuted for killing/attempted killing? What if a government gets information that a child being a citizen is in Beligum/Netherlands and will be killed soon, diplomatic protest note? sanctions for not protecting foreign citizens? special forces to save the child?

The scenarios are endless and rather “interesting”.
Click to expand...
Well, but in the US, many people still get very angry when they hear of a parent (or really anyone) killing a young child, the police, neighbors, complete strangers, they go all out to find the killer and make sure he is punished for as long as possible… I know thats a small hurdle to overcome, but still legalizing the killing of certain kids sounds crazy!!
 
da_nolo said:
What may be said for the following link?

spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Above is a “logical” approach to abortion. is there anything more to say against it?

Sorry it is super long. what are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Short “refusal”:

Ayn Rand would be happy that you fell for her argument hood, line, and sinker. Now please advocate for a bare minimum state in which the poor live and die to the mercy and alms of the richt, because nobody has a right to threaten their bodies with imprisonement or police violence if they only pay in taxes to cover the costs they cause for the state.

Or in other words, the argument completly ignores that if somebody depends on live or well-being in a critical way upon a third party, then it is at least to some extent permissable to require the third party to provide what is needed. ONLY THEN taxes for feeding the poor are ok. But then also some restriction on abortion would be sensible.

Besides, all those hypothetical arguments along “Even if an unborn had the right to life, then … so abortion should still be allowed; hence, nothing would change if unborn had right to life.” are seldom/never honest in the way, that the one raising this argument realy, realy considered the consequences of unborn having the right to life.

Because even if unborn having the right to life, would not allow any limitation on abortion whatsoever, because of autonomy, it would still mean, that e.g. in US 1300000 innocent and defenseless humans are each year killed, because their own mother for some reason considered this course of action to be the best one.

Shouldn’t a government required to protect the life of humans at least sometimes try to understand, why so many mothers consider this course of action to be best?

Cause depending upon the reasons the government could still act to protect the unborn wihtout infringing upon the mothers autonomy by trying to tackle the reasons.

And even a causual fact checking would indicate that potentially a relevant part of pregnant women, i would guess minimum 10%, decide to abort due to pressure in such way, that if they had not been pressured to abort, they would not have aborted.

Then the above hypothetical argument becomes:
“Even if an unborn had the right to life, then … so abortion should still be allowed; hence, nothing would change if unborn had right to life; upps, ok, the government absolutely must start to act NOW because every single day about 350 innocent and defenseless unborn humans are killed without this killing be grounded in the slightest way in her bodily autonomy; instead of writing lousy hypothetical arguments i will write to congress that they get up their … and start to do something about this slaughter.”
 
da_nolo said:
What may be said for the following link?

spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Above is a “logical” approach to abortion. is there anything more to say against it?

Sorry it is super long. what are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Further notes:
  • in the last paragraphs the author actually argues directly/indirectly that
    fetocide should be banned late in pregnancy (which is somewhat equivalent
    to banning it completely, cause early fetocide is not “necessary”)
    late term abortion ban might be ok, as the burden to carry to term is reduced
  • that the negative effects of adoption for the mother cannot justify killing the child, born or unborn (insofar its a unborn child)
  • that (insofar the unborn is a human) the “good samaritian” approach to unplanned pregnancy would be carrying the child to term; this logically means that christians standing before abortion clinics praying and calling women to not abort are objectively behaving as chrisitans should, since they try to remind women that they should act like the good samaritian
  • that (insofar the unborn is a human) the morally good choice would be the good samaritian decision and hence the opposite is likely often to be a morally wrong choice
  • and that certainly a partial abortion ban is a must.
So call any PCs linking this article to own their argument, if they claim its also their argument, or otherwise bring own their own argument. Voicing it, is owning it.

(But usually most PCs weasel away by claiming they were just interested in discussion and its not realy their position, which then results in asking for their position, getting another argument, which again includes consequences they dislike, which then again isn’t their real position, again asking for their real position, again getting an argument with unwanted consequences, and so on)
 
da_nolo said:
Came upon this in an online forum that my cousin e-mailed me bout. little difficult to approach as there is not supporting evidence.

Above is all just one big “claim.” My cousin said he is unable to ask - but bla bla bla, I don’t care about that part. so - what are some thoughts on here?
Click to expand...
It’s been said a million times. Starvation is not a production problem, its a distribution problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top