Poll: Whom is more ignorant in your eyes?

[Wyatt]

Oh really? Well I hate to tell you buddy, but if you have ever used a condom, then you're a dreaded baby-killer as well by that logic. Fetuses are not alive and if they were taken out of their mothers, they'd die instantly. Your sperm is not alive either, but by your logic, each time you jack off or use a birth control, you just killed a baby. Or maybe even a few thousand, depending on the extent of your religious "logic".

Right now the world is too crowded, denying it is stupid and ignorant. That doesn't mean we should kill living people who WOULD be missed. We should move farther back in the cycle and stop it at the source (sex). If we can't do that, then we should do it before logical people term it murder (abortion). Who knows, maybe one day it'll be mandatory to lose your ability to reproduce due to overcrowding. Lets see you spout your bullshit when the world is home to 25 billion people, all starving to death and killing the enviroment.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be "killed" before I was alive rather than get shot in the head now. If you were never alive, then you aren't losing anything and nobody is hurt by your passing. I'd also rather "die" as a fetus then grow up in an orphanage, on the streets or dying of hunger. I don't have anything against religion, except when it makes absolutly zero sense. It's good for comforting people, but people can take it too far.

first off i dont agree the world is too crouded. but putting that aside for the moment i dont have much issue with the rest of what you said.

im not against birth controll im against abortion. this isnt a hard concept to understand is it?

when sperm mets egg, if left alone too do its thing, 9 months later you will have a baby, if you can take measures to stop that sperm meeting the egg fine by me, if you advocated forced sterilization id be willing to listen, if there was some system of birth controll that worked 100% of the time in preventing conception id be willing too see some form of responcable program where a person ability too have children could be governed by their actual ability to provide for and raise them to adulthood.

i AGREE that its much better too prevent conception in the first place than to put a bullet into the head of an adult.

were we DONT agree is at what point in time life begine's. and you wont ever convince me it isnt when sperm meets egg. this is anti-logic that says a baby needs to be able to live outside the womb to be 'alive'? please. by that logic all people who go into submarines are no longer alive because they cant live underwater without a certian envorment. and what of trees and planets that NEVER experiance a womb? are they NOT alive?

the anti-logic that says that its ok too kill a baby because it cant survive outside a womb is nonsence. worse its lazy, its used as an excuse to continue to allow the majority of people who engague in perhaps the most importiant act of their lives, (and indeed to all you 'darwin rules' crowd the ONLY point that evolution has for life: reproduction) to not spend any time on thinking about the results of their actions beyond the moment.

im not a religious nut just because im anti-abortion. i know there are instiances when abortion is called for. but i wont ever agree with the argument that abortion ISNT murder in the vast majority of instiances. when you abort a baby you better have a damn fucking better reason that the condom broke, or you forgot to take your pill (or even more stupid, the world has to many people ignorance). killing a baby should be an extream LAST resort not simply an alternative form of retroactive birth controll.

ill agree 100% if someone would say too me that education on birth controll and developing a 100% effective birth controll system should be done. un-planed pregnancys, or people who continue to have children without the means to provide for them and raise them properly is a bad thing. thing is though we DO have a 100% effective form of birth controll, and thats to murder the baby before its born.

i dont find this acceptable, when sperm meets egg and the first cell devides, life is off and running and for the most part will end 70-80-90 years later, there is no devide at the vagina threshold that breaks up life into handy chunks and anyone that says that any part of your life before you pass the vagina threshold is meaningless because your not alive is a moron. and anyone who uses vague stages of growth to decide that something isnt alive because its not passed a certian date is a moron, and anyone that thinks that killing a baby because it cant survive outside of its habitat at an given point in time is a moron.

i really AM a live and let live kind of guy. i dont like imposing my views on other people. read that carefully, the part when i said IMPOSE. im willing to argue my opinions and views all day and all night, but i often balk at IMPOSING them on people. thing is though, when it comes to abortion, SOMEONE has to stand up for the babys. someone has to point out that your not just changing the oil in your car when you kill a baby. your actualy ending a life. not PREVENTING one your ENDING one.

thats where i draw my line. im all for prevention, im not for termination. and as a SOP to the topic ill say this in closing. people who teach abstinance only are just as stupid and short sighted as they come in my opinion. if the goal is too STOP abortions for any but the most extream cases, than insisting that young people avoid sex totaly is ignorance in the extream. they wont, they WILL get pregnant and then what? force them to destroy not only their own lives but the lives of the children as well becuse of lack of information or a moments bad judgment, or leave them with the 'choice' to get an abortion, something they will live with the rest of their lives? no sir, far better to develope a method of birth controll that works (besides abortion) and far better still too educate on the topic not ignore it.

my 'anger' on this topic is resurved for those people (as seen in this thread) that want to treat abortion/murder as some casual thing, of no more importiance than having a pet put down, or hitting a rabbit in the road on your way home from work. i dont have any issue with a smart debate on the subject. its not an easy topic and im certianly not one of the extream 'right' that says no birth controll, no abortions at all ever, and lets stuff the world to the scuppers with people because God said so, but im also not one of the idiots on the other side that think no more of aborting a human life than they would steping on a spider in their bath.

anyhow the topic of abortion isnt gunna be decided in this forum, and certianly abortion threads have been done to death around here. frankly im tired of the subject but not so tired that i wont comment too the morons that think murder of unborn babys is of no more importance than deciding whats for dinner or what movie your gunna go see this weekend. if your one of these people dont bother responding too me because it wont end well. someone needs to be a voice for those murderd babys and by God im willing too accept that roll. there are people who speak for the parents 'rights' and people who speak for the worlds 'rights' and certianly enough people too speak for the governments 'rights' ......... i choose to be one of those that speak for the childs rights in the hopes that we can keep them alive long enough so they can speak for themselves.

 

[Kinguendo]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

 

[Thanatos34]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

 

[Kinguendo]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

 

[Slayer_2]

first off i dont agree the world is too crouded. but putting that aside for the moment i dont have much issue with the rest of what you said.

im not against birth controll im against abortion. this isnt a hard concept to understand is it?

when sperm mets egg, if left alone too do its thing, 9 months later you will have a baby, if you can take measures to stop that sperm meeting the egg fine by me, if you advocated forced sterilization id be willing to listen, if there was some system of birth controll that worked 100% of the time in preventing conception id be willing too see some form of responcable program where a person ability too have children could be governed by their actual ability to provide for and raise them to adulthood.

i AGREE that its much better too prevent conception in the first place than to put a bullet into the head of an adult.

were we DONT agree is at what point in time life begine's. and you wont ever convince me it isnt when sperm meets egg. this is anti-logic that says a baby needs to be able to live outside the womb to be 'alive'? please. by that logic all people who go into submarines are no longer alive because they cant live underwater without a certian envorment. and what of trees and planets that NEVER experiance a womb? are they NOT alive?

the anti-logic that says that its ok too kill a baby because it cant survive outside a womb is nonsence. worse its lazy, its used as an excuse to continue to allow the majority of people who engague in perhaps the most importiant act of their lives, (and indeed to all you 'darwin rules' crowd the ONLY point that evolution has for life: reproduction) to not spend any time on thinking about the results of their actions beyond the moment.

First off, I'd like to point out that to me, it's morally the same to shoot a baby in the head after its born as it is to abort the baby. Here's the difference though: few people have the will to wait for their kid to be born then brutally execute it. If you can say that you remember anything about being in your mothers womb, you're a terrible liar. You can't win or lose the argument of abortion simply because there is no timeline defining what counts as a live human. If you think about it far enough we are all murderers for not having unprotected sex with as many women as possible and creating as many offspring as possible. It all depends on how illogical you wish to be.

Let me put it this way: to you, it may be "murder" to have an abortion but is that so uncommon from humanity? What is worse, The killing of a young man with a loving family or the "murder" of a human who would grow up alone, starving, poor, hated, etc? If you chose what seems logical to me, then I would like to point out that we are no strangers to seeing millions dead. World Wars and the current issues in Iraq are far more devastating then the loss of a few POTENTIAL "lives" who never had thoughts or had even taken a breath. Don't pretend humans are angels giving each other hugs and kisses. I think it is FAR worse to bleed out during a fire-fight at the age of 20 then it is to die before you are truly alive, facing a life of hunger, abandonment and rejection. Look at it logically, babies are cute, but their POTENTIAL life is not worth more than two people who have truly lived. If the baby wrecks their lives, then there is no way to justify it.

But I can't do this anymore. Arguing with religious fanatics is like trying to beat down a brick wall with your bare hands.

 

[Wyatt]

First off, I'd like to point out that to me, it's morally the same to shoot a baby in the head after its born as it is to abort the baby. Here's the difference though: few people have the will to wait for their kid to be born then brutally execute it.

id agree with this.

If you can say that you remember anything about being in your mothers womb, you're a terrible liar.

i cant, i dont, and i dont know anyone who says they can, whats your point?

You can't win or lose the argument of abortion simply because there is no timeline defining what counts as a live human.

sure there is, its when sperm meets egg and that egg devides. then untill death how ever far that is in the future is defined as life. pretty simple.

If you think about it far enough we are all murderers for not having unprotected sex with as many women as possible and creating as many offspring as possible. It all depends on how illogical you wish to be.

no, i wouldnt agree. not havin sex isnt the same thing as destroying something that is alive.

life doesnt start when you think about having sex, or even when you DO have sex, life starts when that act of sex creates a life. again, very simple.

Let me put it this way: to you, it may be "murder" to have an abortion but is that so uncommon from humanity?

not one bit uncommon. i never said 'humanity' was smart, and just, and composed of all things great and good. how does the fact that 'humanity' can do some pretty stupid things change the fact that abortion is one of the worst of them? should we make rape ok because 'humanity' does it all over the world? should we make murder legal and justify that because it happens every day all over the planet by our fellow humans?

in not sure i see what your getting at with this.

What is worse, The killing of a young man with a loving family or the "murder" of a human who would grow up alone, starving, poor, hated, etc?

there is no worse they are both equally to be stoped. i dont for a second accept taht its ok to murder EITHER of these beings.

If you chose what seems logical to me, then I would like to point out that we are no strangers to seeing millions dead.
World Wars and the current issues in Iraq are far more devastating then the loss of a few POTENTIAL "lives" who never had thoughts or had even taken a breath.

so we justify murder because of world wars and iraq? really? IRAQ? i mean seriously i know Bush was a moron and that the whole invading iraq thing was a bad idea, but really? its now to be used as an excuse to make abortion ok?

Don't pretend humans are angels giving each other hugs and kisses. I think it is FAR worse to bleed out during a fire-fight at the age of 20 then it is to die before you are truly alive, facing a life of hunger, abandonment and rejection. Look at it logically, babies are cute, but their POTENTIAL life is not worth more than two people who have truly lived. If the baby wrecks their lives, then there is no way to justify it.

over react much? i wonder how many of the thousands of aborted babys in America alone each year would truly be facing this bleak picture of starvation, abandonment and rejection. why too hear you tell it we are living in some kind of mad-max death fight for our very survival and its a BLESSING to murder our unborn children rather than too bring them into the highest level of civilization that this world has ever known.

i see that you would rather murder those poor souls than bring them into this horrible world we Americans have to face every day ........... makes sense to me

But I can't do this anymore. Arguing with religious fanatics is like trying to beat down a brick wall with your bare hands.

i dont actualy have an issue with being called a 'religious fanatic'. im not but if it makes you feel better to name call than thats ok with me. call me anything you like, but know this. abortion is murder and its not God thats told me that, its common sense.

you can make all the excuses you like to try and cover for this bald fact. but in the end id actualy rather you just came out and said, yup its murder and we are willing to do it even so, rather than to seek to convince people that the sky isnt blue its green and that water isnt wet, its dry.

you wont see me picketing abortion clinics, you wont see me spitting on abortion doctors, or cursing women who chose to have abortions, you will see me speaking out any time pro-abortion people treat the topic as if its no more importiant than spraying for roaches is.

babys arent a curse they are a blessing, ALL babys, and i hope that we as 'humanity' never go so far as to believe otherwise, then again if we become so warped and twisted that we think killing our own children is a good idea than we diserve to die out.

 

[Bat Vader]

The latter, if only because I'm a bitter virgin.

Don't be bitter about it, you are something that most of this world is not.

Yay, I'm a virgin.

Yay, I am a virgin as well. Are we going to be sacrificed?

 

[Thanatos34]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

 

[Thanatos34]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

Way to miss the point. Some people need to stay alive to preach the message not to make TOO MANY more people. He isn't calling for mass extinctions hes asking for moderation of population growth. Those that want to lower the pop should go last to make sure the others go first lol.

Again, after you. You want to not have kids, because you think Mother Earth is getting a bit too crowded, go ahead. We'll be more than glad to have you out of the pool, as it were.

Just think about what you are suggesting. Something like what China has? How exactly do you plan to enforce this "population control?"

Again you miss the point. If we went first it would just be like Idiocracy with the stupid and inconsiderate having more kids proportionately. Let those that are responsible go last to make sure it goes right. Disliking high populations does not mean you deserve to die.

We could easily offer economic incentives to those with less kids-not necessarily an authoritarian imposition of pop maxes but incentives to have smaller families with better educated children. What China did was a socially responsible action for their country.

Whomever said abortion is murder is full of crap. Its not alive yet its not murder its not inhumane - I don't feel like escalating into a flamewar on abortion here so I'll nip it now but I have to say the truth at least once- abortion is not murder anymore than eating eggs is. Yes I've taken bio so i don't need gestation explanations. Is meat murder even though its a convenient source of protein?

What China did was an atrocity. I have a Chinese friend who was forced to have an abortion. That is not a "socially responsible action," that is a fucked-up government that deserves to be disobeyed in that matter, if not overthrown entirely.

Of course meat is not murder. Are you suggesting we eat the fetus?

You miss my point. What you are suggesting is an aristocracy. "Oh, well, we think you guys should stop having kids because it's going to mess up the planet. We are going to keep having kids just so we can make sure that you guys continue to not have kids."

...

Yeah, like I said, you gonna hold that position, you go right ahead. If you don't follow through on your beliefs, I feel free to label you a hypocrite. (If you have kids- not if you don't kill yourself. After all, why have kids when there are plenty of orphans in the world to adopt, right? Please don't take this out of context and say I'm against adoption, btw. I'd be most displeased.)

I'm not a hypocrite (at least int his context)- I don't advocate an aristocracy and I find it a bit hypocritical of you to think abortion is murder and meat isn't. I didn't say people shouldn't have kids I said they shouldn't have MANY kids. China did some socially responsible population engineering in their country to save themselves say what you will about their human rights record- their population control is great. It would be better if they could enforce it voluntarily instead of forcing people to take tough actions. My issue was having many kids i.e. over REPLACEMENT rate. We as individuals have the right to procreate its how much procreation that is the issue imo. So no hypocrisy there at all. If I'd rather pass on my genes than adopt someone with different genes i have that right. Its when I want to pump out a bunch of kids that it becomes an issue. If we all just gave up and died no one would be around to regulate the future populations of the world.

Also - all my objections to high population and big families will go away if we begin space colonization- then we need to shore up our numbers to populate the cosmos.

i first heard of the vagina dentata in a mythology class when we were reading some Native American myths - supposedly there was a special berry that would get rid of the teeth.

Forcibly enforcing a law that makes people have an abortion is not a socially responsible action, it is an atrocity. China has plenty of room, they simply need to spread out. They are all concentrated in an area of about 200 square miles. Rural China? I'd be surprised if they had a population density of over 20/square mile.

Considering that I think a fetus is a human being almost from the get-go, I fail to see why it's hypocritical of me to say meat is not murder and abortion is. Meat is not from humans, (if yours is, we have a bigger problem ), thus it is not murder, as murder is killing another human. Also, meat from a cow is used, and the fetus' resources are not. We simply toss them out. (And if you think we should use them the same way as we use meat- well, again, we have a bigger problem. )

In any case, we have plenty of room left on good old earth, certainly enough to not stoop to such levels as forced population control. I tell you what, if that ever happened here in America, that would be my sign to leave. Or start a revolution, not sure which. Get back to me if it happens.

Its not about room its about resources. I don't consider a fetus a human yet. Also fetus tissue is put to use sometimes for great great benefit to people- many medical research centers use fetal tissue for all sorts of medical breakthroughs so yeah those resources are used. I find defining murder as simply killing another human to be a very anthrocentric definition. You're unlikely to convince me that animals don't have rights and I'm unlikely to convince you that abortion isn't murder- these beliefs are deeply held and unlikely to be swayed from simple discussion. Good luck.

If animals have rights, then where are the rights of the fetus? How come we can suck out their brains and cut them to pieces without even an anesthetic? Where is PETA on that?

 

[barryween]

I chose the abstinance people, only because at times sex can be like the greatest thing ever, while the abstinance people are just silly. If you wanted everyone to never have sex, we would go extinct. But at times both sides of every fight are foolish...

never have sex? i don't think you know quite what it means. or was that sarcasm?

I was just joking... like I am one of those ignorant people that act like sex is the best thing ever... I am sorry...

 

[MindofMykyta]

From my area of education, we've been told that abstinence doesn't have any religious background, it's just a way of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Naturally there can be arguments, but that's besides the point.

This carries about as much weight as an Intelligent Design Theorist saying that ID theory doesn't necessarilly entail the Christian deity. Anyone who has paid any attention to the debate knows better, ID theorists in this country are inevitably Christian, and abstinence only educators are inevitably coming from one of the Judeo-Christian root traditions (Judisam, Christianity, Islam, or Mormonism), no rational person would ever claim that abstinence only was the only option. A simple observation of the society we live in would be enough to lead one to conclude that people are going to have sex, so if you teach abstinence only then you leave those who will have sex without the knowledge they need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and STD's.

Well like I said there are arguments for it, and I heard this so many years ago when I was in Junior High School, and it was a public school, so I know they weren't allowed to mention any particular religion.

But you do speak the truth, I should have made myself a bit more clear with that.

 

[Wyatt]

im not sure i agree that abstinence only is a 'religious' thing. in fact its actualy a common sense thing. abstinence IS the ONLY way to be certian you wont get an STD or pregnancy.

too my mind it becomes a 'religious' thing when it is the only thing that is tought in sex education classes.

it was tought to me in a publich highschool something like this

day one, first lesson, teacher says: "first we start out with this, abstinence only is the ONLY way to be certian your wont get an STD or end up dealing with pregnancy"

second lesson: now ...........*and moves onto practical things like condom use and such*

i dont really see the 'religion' in that as much as i do simple logic.

bascialy when it goes from being tought as simple logic and starts being pushed as the ONLY possable choice than it becomes encumbered by 'religious teachings'

i will say though that this snearing that goes on about 'religion' isnt really needed is it? i mean after all, this being a prime example, in this case the 'religious view' is also the logical and RIGHT view isnt it. abstinence only IS the only way to be sure and avoid STDs or pregnancy is it not? not because God said so (well he did but thats really besides the point) but because 'nature' does.

i find that people that take exception to a right message and a logic common sense view about something just because 'religion' agrees with it is just as stupid and short sighted as the 'religios morons' they are using making fun of in the first place.

stupidity isnt a one way street you know. and a knee jerk reaction too all things 'religious' just because they ARE 'religious' is as stupid as 'religious' people putting down all NON religious ideas without reguard to common sense.

 

[Kinguendo]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

 

[Thanatos34]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

Err, have you ever heard of partial-birth abortion? People used to cut up the baby, suck its brains out and throw it away. It looks just like a baby, before they cut it to pieces. They would partially birth the baby, before brutally killing it. There is simply no other way to put partial-birth abortion. Fortunately that practice has now been banned, barely, (5-4 by the Scotus), but it did happen.

Abortion is not ruled by science, it is ruled by politics. Scientifically, there is no difference between a fetus of 12 weeks, I believe it was, and a human infant, except one is not developed as much as the other. Don't quote me on the 12 weeks things yet, let me see if I can find the group of scientists whose research I am attempting to quote here.

For your other point... I am not quite certain what it is. "It costs money to make the environment more comfortable... so we shouldn't even try? Instead, we should institute measures like population control?" Is that what you are saying?

 

[Kinguendo]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

Err, have you ever heard of partial-birth abortion? People used to cut up the baby, suck its brains out and throw it away. It looks just like a baby, before they cut it to pieces. They would partially birth the baby, before brutally killing it. There is simply no other way to put partial-birth abortion. Fortunately that practice has now been banned, barely, (5-4 by the Scotus), but it did happen.

Abortion is not ruled by science, it is ruled by politics. Scientifically, there is no difference between a fetus of 12 weeks, I believe it was, and a human infant, except one is not developed as much as the other. Don't quote me on the 12 weeks things yet, let me see if I can find the group of scientists whose research I am attempting to quote here.

For your other point... I am not quite certain what it is. "It costs money to make the environment more comfortable... so we shouldn't even try? Instead, we should institute measures like population control?" Is that what you are saying?

Partial birth abortion? I take it you are American, right?
Anyway point being this procedure not only gets used for less than 0.5% of all abortions and it is any late term abortion (21 weeks or later) that has the IDX method of abortion. So no, its not a baby. Also, who said anything about abortion being "ruled" by science? I said it was defined by science... of course the government get control of it. Also, infant in legal terms is any child below the legal age of consent to have sexual intercourse... Thats quite a wide range of looks and I dont think any fetus has ever been 6 foot 4.
And if you are a christian (which I assume you are) then what the hell are you talking about? "God" gave humans free will and YOU think YOU can tell people what they should do with it? Dellusions of grandeur, much?

 

[Thanatos34]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

Err, have you ever heard of partial-birth abortion? People used to cut up the baby, suck its brains out and throw it away. It looks just like a baby, before they cut it to pieces. They would partially birth the baby, before brutally killing it. There is simply no other way to put partial-birth abortion. Fortunately that practice has now been banned, barely, (5-4 by the Scotus), but it did happen.

Abortion is not ruled by science, it is ruled by politics. Scientifically, there is no difference between a fetus of 12 weeks, I believe it was, and a human infant, except one is not developed as much as the other. Don't quote me on the 12 weeks things yet, let me see if I can find the group of scientists whose research I am attempting to quote here.

For your other point... I am not quite certain what it is. "It costs money to make the environment more comfortable... so we shouldn't even try? Instead, we should institute measures like population control?" Is that what you are saying?

Partial birth abortion? I take it you are American, right?
Anyway point being this procedure not only gets used for less than 0.5% of all abortions and it is any late term abortion (21 weeks or later) that has the IDX method of abortion. So no, its not a baby. Also, who said anything about abortion being "ruled" by science? I said it was defined by science... of course the government get control of it. Also, infant in legal terms is any child below the legal age of consent to have sexual intercourse... Thats quite a wide range of looks and I dont think any fetus has ever been 6 foot 4.
And if you are a christian (which I assume you are) then what the hell are you talking about? "God" gave humans free will and YOU think YOU can tell people what they should do with it? Dellusions of grandeur, much?

Yes, I am American, and yes it would be a baby at this point. You said there were no cases wherein someone would cut up a baby and still be sane, and I gave you an example of a case where it had occurred, many, many times. In fact, contrary to your information, at least in America, this is the standard method of abortion for most procedures, (not the partial-birthing part, the cutting into pieces part).

You assume a lot about my definition of God to assume that He gave humans free will. Also your point is irrelevant: A murderer has free will, too, but I sure as hell can stop him from committing murder. There are certain acts which people cannot do, free will or no free will. If the fetus is alive- and that is all that is necessary, it does not necessarily have to be defined as human, though I think it's pretty obvious that it is- then the mother's free will to kill it does not supersede the fetus' right to life.

 

[Kinguendo]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

Err, have you ever heard of partial-birth abortion? People used to cut up the baby, suck its brains out and throw it away. It looks just like a baby, before they cut it to pieces. They would partially birth the baby, before brutally killing it. There is simply no other way to put partial-birth abortion. Fortunately that practice has now been banned, barely, (5-4 by the Scotus), but it did happen.

Abortion is not ruled by science, it is ruled by politics. Scientifically, there is no difference between a fetus of 12 weeks, I believe it was, and a human infant, except one is not developed as much as the other. Don't quote me on the 12 weeks things yet, let me see if I can find the group of scientists whose research I am attempting to quote here.

For your other point... I am not quite certain what it is. "It costs money to make the environment more comfortable... so we shouldn't even try? Instead, we should institute measures like population control?" Is that what you are saying?

Partial birth abortion? I take it you are American, right?
Anyway point being this procedure not only gets used for less than 0.5% of all abortions and it is any late term abortion (21 weeks or later) that has the IDX method of abortion. So no, its not a baby. Also, who said anything about abortion being "ruled" by science? I said it was defined by science... of course the government get control of it. Also, infant in legal terms is any child below the legal age of consent to have sexual intercourse... Thats quite a wide range of looks and I dont think any fetus has ever been 6 foot 4.
And if you are a christian (which I assume you are) then what the hell are you talking about? "God" gave humans free will and YOU think YOU can tell people what they should do with it? Dellusions of grandeur, much?

Yes, I am American, and yes it would be a baby at this point. You said there were no cases wherein someone would cut up a baby and still be sane, and I gave you an example of a case where it had occurred, many, many times. In fact, contrary to your information, at least in America, this is the standard method of abortion for most procedures, (not the partial-birthing part, the cutting into pieces part).

You assume a lot about my definition of God to assume that He gave humans free will. Also your point is irrelevant: A murderer has free will, too, but I sure as hell can stop him from committing murder. There are certain acts which people cannot do, free will or no free will. If the fetus is alive- and that is all that is necessary, it does not necessarily have to be defined as human, though I think it's pretty obvious that it is- then the mother's free will to kill it does not supersede the fetus' right to life.

Hmm, do you want to know the most obvious difference between a 12 week old fetus and a baby? Its that there has never been a premature birth below 21 weeks and 6 days that has survived and this was a bloody scientific miracle. So the difference is a 12 week old couldnt survive where as a baby can, clearly a major difference, biologically.
Ah, so abortionists are murderers... here we go.
Oh my word... this is just going to become another Science VS God thing isnt it. Well, until proof of that comes forward then I bid you fair well because I am not being caught up in the eternal argument. That can screw right off.

 

[Thanatos34]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

Err, have you ever heard of partial-birth abortion? People used to cut up the baby, suck its brains out and throw it away. It looks just like a baby, before they cut it to pieces. They would partially birth the baby, before brutally killing it. There is simply no other way to put partial-birth abortion. Fortunately that practice has now been banned, barely, (5-4 by the Scotus), but it did happen.

Abortion is not ruled by science, it is ruled by politics. Scientifically, there is no difference between a fetus of 12 weeks, I believe it was, and a human infant, except one is not developed as much as the other. Don't quote me on the 12 weeks things yet, let me see if I can find the group of scientists whose research I am attempting to quote here.

For your other point... I am not quite certain what it is. "It costs money to make the environment more comfortable... so we shouldn't even try? Instead, we should institute measures like population control?" Is that what you are saying?

Partial birth abortion? I take it you are American, right?
Anyway point being this procedure not only gets used for less than 0.5% of all abortions and it is any late term abortion (21 weeks or later) that has the IDX method of abortion. So no, its not a baby. Also, who said anything about abortion being "ruled" by science? I said it was defined by science... of course the government get control of it. Also, infant in legal terms is any child below the legal age of consent to have sexual intercourse... Thats quite a wide range of looks and I dont think any fetus has ever been 6 foot 4.
And if you are a christian (which I assume you are) then what the hell are you talking about? "God" gave humans free will and YOU think YOU can tell people what they should do with it? Dellusions of grandeur, much?

Yes, I am American, and yes it would be a baby at this point. You said there were no cases wherein someone would cut up a baby and still be sane, and I gave you an example of a case where it had occurred, many, many times. In fact, contrary to your information, at least in America, this is the standard method of abortion for most procedures, (not the partial-birthing part, the cutting into pieces part).

You assume a lot about my definition of God to assume that He gave humans free will. Also your point is irrelevant: A murderer has free will, too, but I sure as hell can stop him from committing murder. There are certain acts which people cannot do, free will or no free will. If the fetus is alive- and that is all that is necessary, it does not necessarily have to be defined as human, though I think it's pretty obvious that it is- then the mother's free will to kill it does not supersede the fetus' right to life.

Hmm, do you want to know the most obvious difference between a 12 week old fetus and a baby? Its that there has never been a premature birth below 21 weeks and 6 days that has survived and this was a bloody scientific miracle. So the difference is a 12 week old couldnt survive where as a baby can, clearly a major difference, biologically.
Ah, so abortionists are murderers... here we go.
Oh my word... this is just going to become another Science VS God thing isnt it. Well, until proof of that comes forward then I bid you fair well because I am not being caught up in the eternal argument. That can screw right off.

I didn't say abortionists are murderers, I was using that as an example of something a person with free will is not allowed to do. It's called a parallel, I am using that to make a point. As for the God part of it, you're the one who brought that up, not me.

There are plenty of people who cannot survive on their own due to disabilities. This does not make them any less of a human being than I am, nor does it give me the right to kill them, especially not in the inhumane way abortions are performed. That is a shoddy argument indeed, and leads to very dangerous consequences.

 

[Kinguendo]

I think the most ignorant thing is when people say abortion is evil inhumane.

I don't want to be mean or anything, but really now! Our planet does not need any more people than it has now!

Oh good. So we should just start killing people off? After you, buddy.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Abortion is not murder, and I have never implied that it was. Unless you're an evangelical religious zealot, you would know that the planet is under heavy stress from the population.
Abortion is not murder, it's only a way of preventing the unnecessary excess use of our resources.

The planet is under heavy stress...

Is that why Russia has a density of 20 people per square mile, and Australia has a density of 7/ square mile, the US has 80/sq mile... I love how one can no longer disagree with each other without being called names. Our problem is not too many people, it's too many people concentrated in small locations. Take the central eastern portion of China, which is ridiculously overcrowded.

Abortion is killing, at least, as perhaps you could argue that the fetus is not human, though that gets really shaky, (i.e. at what point does it become a human), but it is still killing. It may be killing something with a good end in mind, but the fetus is a living thing that you are destroying merely because it is inconvenient, in most cases. If the mother's life is in danger, or in certain other cases, fine, it may be unavoidable. Otherwise... yeah.

And hell yes it's inhumane. They suck the kid's brains out, and cut him to pieces, for crying out loud. If there is the least chance that he can feel that, don't you think we should do something about it?

Oh come on! Everyone knows that there are parts (Some really large parts) of all of these countries that you mentioned that are just uninhabitable by humans... Have you heard of a place called Utah? Do you wanna live with Morons? Sorry, Mormons.

If we can live in Antarctica, we can handle Russia and the Outback in Australia. We just need to develop technologies that would allow us to live there more comfortably, in order to make people actually "want" to live there. Or just make it really, really, cheap.

It would cost too much to make the land habitable so the by making them livable the prices would sky rocket and make them too expesinve for the everyday man and the rich wont want to live there because... well lets be honest, the coldest parts of Russia, the dengerous Australian outback and like I said... Utah and a new one... Texas... *shudder*

We have no idea how much it would cost, because we won't even try, because the world is not actually over-populated.

And your solution to it would be population control? I am glad you are not the one making the decisions, no offense.

Well, you cant say that people havent even tried... they dont need to try they just take the temperature of Russia and say "nope, there isnt that many people in Russia anyway and there isnt a huge demand to live here... so no point wasting money" or for Australia "This place is really far away from the beautiful beaches of Australia and its bloody dangerous... waste of money" or for Utah "Mormons... just no". People with money dont have money because they take uneducated guesses about investments, they have it because they make ecologically sound decisions based on predictions for the first couple of years.
Also, I am going to take offence because I havent even made my case known and yet you have judged me already... wouldnt you take offence at that? Of course you would, you take offence for a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone.

I have no problem with a shapeless group of cells being removed from someone. I have a problem that even after it becomes a human baby, we still cut it to pieces, suck out its brains, and then toss it in the dumpster. I don't care what type of life it is, that is cruel and inhumane.

So make your case, I thought your case was that we should institute population control, eventually. If your solution isn't population control, then my statement of what I am glad about wouldn't apply, since it is based on a false premise.

Let's put it this way. You are saying that because people wouldn't be comfortable in Russia, as is, that we should keep our population down. I say, get some scientists working on how to make it more comfortable. We will eventually need the space.

Once again, you arent thinking about cost, it still costs money to do things.

Also when has a person ever cut up a baby legally without being insane? Never, brilliant... glad thats sorted out. There is a set amount of months that you have to be due until it is too late to have an abortion, its science and it is more powerful and more precise than than "God".

I believe people have a choice (as does "God", the whole free will thing) within limits that are defined by morals and science, if you havent made youre choice before the time then you have to live with it because it would be inhumane if you tried after that time.

Err, have you ever heard of partial-birth abortion? People used to cut up the baby, suck its brains out and throw it away. It looks just like a baby, before they cut it to pieces. They would partially birth the baby, before brutally killing it. There is simply no other way to put partial-birth abortion. Fortunately that practice has now been banned, barely, (5-4 by the Scotus), but it did happen.

Abortion is not ruled by science, it is ruled by politics. Scientifically, there is no difference between a fetus of 12 weeks, I believe it was, and a human infant, except one is not developed as much as the other. Don't quote me on the 12 weeks things yet, let me see if I can find the group of scientists whose research I am attempting to quote here.

For your other point... I am not quite certain what it is. "It costs money to make the environment more comfortable... so we shouldn't even try? Instead, we should institute measures like population control?" Is that what you are saying?

Partial birth abortion? I take it you are American, right?
Anyway point being this procedure not only gets used for less than 0.5% of all abortions and it is any late term abortion (21 weeks or later) that has the IDX method of abortion. So no, its not a baby. Also, who said anything about abortion being "ruled" by science? I said it was defined by science... of course the government get control of it. Also, infant in legal terms is any child below the legal age of consent to have sexual intercourse... Thats quite a wide range of looks and I dont think any fetus has ever been 6 foot 4.
And if you are a christian (which I assume you are) then what the hell are you talking about? "God" gave humans free will and YOU think YOU can tell people what they should do with it? Dellusions of grandeur, much?

Yes, I am American, and yes it would be a baby at this point. You said there were no cases wherein someone would cut up a baby and still be sane, and I gave you an example of a case where it had occurred, many, many times. In fact, contrary to your information, at least in America, this is the standard method of abortion for most procedures, (not the partial-birthing part, the cutting into pieces part).

You assume a lot about my definition of God to assume that He gave humans free will. Also your point is irrelevant: A murderer has free will, too, but I sure as hell can stop him from committing murder. There are certain acts which people cannot do, free will or no free will. If the fetus is alive- and that is all that is necessary, it does not necessarily have to be defined as human, though I think it's pretty obvious that it is- then the mother's free will to kill it does not supersede the fetus' right to life.

Hmm, do you want to know the most obvious difference between a 12 week old fetus and a baby? Its that there has never been a premature birth below 21 weeks and 6 days that has survived and this was a bloody scientific miracle. So the difference is a 12 week old couldnt survive where as a baby can, clearly a major difference, biologically.
Ah, so abortionists are murderers... here we go.
Oh my word... this is just going to become another Science VS God thing isnt it. Well, until proof of that comes forward then I bid you fair well because I am not being caught up in the eternal argument. That can screw right off.

I didn't say abortionists are murderers, I was using that as an example of something a person with free will is not allowed to do. It's called a parallel, I am using that to make a point. As for the God part of it, you're the one who brought that up, not me.

There are plenty of people who cannot survive on their own due to disabilities. This does not make them any less of a human being than I am, nor does it give me the right to kill them, especially not in the inhumane way abortions are performed. That is a shoddy argument indeed, and leads to very dangerous consequences.

You are right, you didnt say it but you did imply it by making murder your refernce point for what "God" says is naughty.
Also, I can pick up a "God" fearing person from 3000 miles away from a couple of comments... and this is about abortion... Who normally opposes this again(?) Oh yeah! The point being, it was only a matter of time before someone says "God says it is wrong! So NERR!"... hell, someone might already have said it... there are alot of posts on here.
Who said anything about surviving on their own? If i said that then my argument would fall apart pretty fast because BABIES cant survive on their own either. No amount of mordern science could keep the 12 week old fetus' alive after a premature birth, and science does a hell of alot more for babies than religion.
The time frame that is given to have an abortion is the time that a fetus could not survive a premature birth so it is not capable of living with or without science and that 21 week premature baby is the exception that proves the rule because it was a medical marvel, a scientific miracle.