Originally posted by sithsaber408
Anyway, the whole bussiness of abortion (and it is a business) will soon be over.Children will live, people will be more responsible, and not have to worry about depression, suicide, infection, breast cancer, or death due to abortion. 🙂
I believe that that is a very narrow-minded point of view. Making abortions illegal at any point will not solve all problems. I think I'll address each of your claims one by one.
"Children will live"
Are you sure? I've seen your arguments before, and yes, it is possible for single mothers to raise children on their own and create responsible, well-mannered adults. However, are you absolutely sure, without a doubt, that all women can do so? Are you so sure that the majority of children who were brought into this world against their mother's will won't grow up very poor and/or mistreated, therefore making them resort to a life of crime, perhaps someday killing someone? Furthermore, some (not all) pro-lifers state that it is the will of God to for life be preserved at all costs. So why is it that we can choose who goes hungry in the world and who does not or who lives with shelter and who does not? Aren't we playing God? Somehow, I doubt that many of the same people who advocate so much for allowing life to prosper life as ascetics do: with just adequate food and shelter necessary to stay alive in order to use the rest of their money towards helping others. I'm not saying that people have to do so, I'm just saying that if they care so much about life, they should look after the lives of people already in the world.
"People will be more responsible"
About sex? So even if say, a condom breaks, it is still their fault? So in your eyes, it is perfectly right to force people to take responsibility for actions outside of their control, and the only safe way to go about living without being forced to have children would be to not have sex without the intention of producing children. Hmm, are you dictating what is right and wrong?
"People will...not have to worry about depression, suicide, infection, breast cancer, or death due to abortion."
That remark is only made to create an illusion of an utopia. Depression and suicide could (and sometimes have before) stem(ed) from the inability to have an abortion, whether from social pressure or from the law. Infection and death? Have you ever heard of abortions done without doctors? They're almost always dangerous, and cause a massive loss of blood...
True enough about the breast cancer though, but couldn't you also say that if we outlawed junk food and radioactive materials we'd eliminate a lot of diseases as well?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
By the extension of that logic btw, nearly every pro-choice person is ACTUALLY pro-life. Nearly everyone supports abortion being illegal after a certain point, which is denying a woman's choice. You will find the measure of support which agrees that it is right for an aboriton to be carried out right up up to term is tiny, and that the largest group favours the rules being made more strict i.e. it being illegal to terminate after an earlier point than it is now- choice be damned.
What are you trying to say here? That nearly all (assumption, by the way) people are pro-life because, at some point, they believe abortions should be stopped?
If so, that's wrong. Why? Because if you're for abortion in any way, you're not pro-life are you? No. Stopping it at a point where you believe it gets ridiculous just means you're against certain abortions, not abortion as a concept because you believe it to be taking life, which is what pro-life is.
-AC
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Look, I'll respect your figures. But, I think that 1/3 is tragic. I think it should be higher. Just so I'm clear, you are basing the tragic aspect of this situation on your religion...right?
No, not really.
Just a general tragedy, I guess.
Crazylover makes a good point that many children will be poor and destitute who could have been aborted.
On the flip side, there is close to a 1/3rd of a generation gone that could have been great people.
Could have cured AIDS, made great art, been an awesome detective, etc.......
I just think it sucks that they will never get the chance, and I do believe 1/3rd to be a significant amount of people in any group.
Of course you know that I'm a Christian and that I wouldn't want babies to die, but I agreed earlier on in the thread to leave religion out.
I know you wont mind that. 🙂
Originally posted by sithsaber408
On the flip side, there is close to a 1/3rd of a generation gone that could have been great people.Could have cured AIDS, made great art, been an awesome detective, etc.......
I just think it sucks that they will never get the chance, and I do believe 1/3rd to be a significant amount of people in any group.
Hahahahahaha.
"Could have cured AIDS, made great art, been an awesome detective."
Hahahahahaha.
Shall I run out a list on the bad side of what they could have become? Yeah.
1. A biological warfare proprietor (spreading diseases as opposed to curing them).
2. A criminal (Creating crimes as opposed to stopping them).
3. A corporate puppet (Bastardising art as opposed to creating great art).
4. A self-righteous, hypocritical christian (See thread for details).
So you see, that argument doesn't work. "They could have been great", yeah? They could have been bad too, or almost as bad and most likely, indifferent, mediocre.
-AC
Originally posted by BackFire
Indeed, that "They coulda been something great" thing never works. It's such a lazy and self defeating argument because the people who use it generally don't realize that they also could have been something terrible.
They do realize that there coulda been bad people, but prefer an optimistic approach.
"The glass is half full, not half empty."
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
They do realize that there coulda been bad people, but prefer an optimistic approach."The glass is half full, not half empty."
No, they prefer using that argument in the hopes that there's someone void of any common sense willing to agree with them and not be aware of the fact that there is a complete other side that negates their argument.
That's what it is. The "They could have been great people, so it's bad they were aborted" argument is horseshit. Plain and simple.
-AC
Originally posted by Makedde
Okay...pro choice then. Now, will there be no more arguing? 🙂
Originally posted by DiamondBulletsBy "optimistic" you obviously meant "moronic", and that is not alright.
No it's not. Nuttin' wrong with an optomistic view.