If anti-abortion, would you support other forms of population control?

Bullseye said:

We could just buy a one way ticket for all those folks that complain that some other country's laws are better. If you like the healthcare in France? Au Revoir; better gun laws in Australia G'day mate, etc.
Maybe just ship all socialists to the Scandinavian country of their choice, or Venezuela if they'd prefer.

That should give us plenty of elbow room.

Click to expand...

"All scandinavian countries are socialist" -- how did this factoid gain credence? Even Sweden does not have a socialist government right now. Since the election on Sept 8 the parties have been arguing, fruitlessly, about how to form a government and its possible that the Social Democrats will not be in government again.

Bullseye said:

We could just buy a one way ticket for all those folks that complain that some other country's laws are better. If you like the healthcare in France? Au Revoir; better gun laws in Australia G'day mate, etc.
Maybe just ship all socialists to the Scandinavian country of their choice, or Venezuela if they'd prefer.

That should give us plenty of elbow room.

Click to expand...

Yeah, We could send all of the trumpist wall lovers to Israel or china to enjoy their walls. Byebye.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

i've thought it would be a good idea to test people when they become of age to decide if they deserve to breed. The test is not only a written test, psychological and sociallogical. Though if I was given the test then I wouldn't have kids either. If you fail the test you will be spade or neutered like unfit animals

Cameron said:

My support of abortion rights is predominantly pragmatic. Unwanted children are a burden on society: our foster care and public schools systems are already underfunded and failing in many areas. Without proper care, such children are likely to grow up emotionally disturbed or with educational deficiencies or delinquent, imposing further burdens on society. I believe it was Freakanomics that posited that there was a correlation between Roe v Wade and the modern decrease in crime we have experienced since the 80s. Whether you believe that or not, it cannot be denied that dealing with children who are not wanted by their parents comes at a significant cost in an already overpopulated world.

Second, I simply do not feel that termination of a fetus — a small collection of human cells which in its earliest stages is far less complex than the trees we cut down at will or the flies we squash without a second thought, and which even in intermediate stages is still far less complex than animals we breed and slaughter for meet and clothing — is an inherently unjustifiable act.

But controversial as these opinions may be, and I know how passionately many will disagree, I am more curious to know what pro-lifers’ views are on the practical problems that anti-abortion policy presents. What alternatives policies would you support to control out-of-control population in a world where the need for human labor is becoming less and less critical, and yet more and more people are being born? Where overpopulation is already destroying our environment and creating friction between expanding cultures?

Click to expand...

Medical/Scientific research, and forced relocation to other planets.

Crovax said:

Wrong. The people who recklessly create unwanted children are the burden on society.

Click to expand...

The cause and the effect are both burdens on society.

Just like my ill-fitting hiking boots and the blisters they cause.


But if you're saying it's better to attack the root cause than the effect you have a point.

Not sure how you could do this though with unwanted pregnancies.

Lursa said:

How do you determine the unborn's choice?

And good luck if you assume what it is. There are at least 3 people on this forum alone that will tell you they wish they had been aborted.

Click to expand...

While I understand their pain, the truth is that they haven't ended their life when it is their choice.

Also, "there are at least three" is an abysmal basis on which to kill others on the off chance they might be in that vanishingly small minority.

I mean, lets start gassing people on the grounds that some of them might be suicidal, right? :roll:

jmotivator said:

While I understand their pain, the truth is that they haven't ended their life when it is their choice.

Also, "there are at least three" is an abysmal basis on which to kill others on the off chance they might be in that vanishingly small minority.

I mean, lets start gassing people on the grounds that some of them might be suicidal, right? :roll:

Click to expand...

THe number of valid reasons does not diminish the justifications. And your hyperbole about gassing people shows you have little basis for real argument.

And remind me...how many people end their lives when it's their choice? How many people get that choice? Then tell me why the unborn deserves it at the expense of a woman's free will and Constitutional rights?

Lursa said:

THe number of valid reasons does not diminish the justifications. And your hyperbole about gassing people shows you have little basis for real argument.

Click to expand...

I'm simply applying your logic, if that is hyperbole then that would indicate that somewhere deep down you realize your own argument is extreme.

And remind me...how many people end their lives when it's their choice? How many people get that choice? Then tell me why the unborn deserves it at the expense of a woman's free will and Constitutional rights?

Click to expand...

You are doubling down on a very strange argument. People who have the ability to reason the value of their own life also have the ability to end it. Why don't they?

For you to argue that it would be better for them to be dead in the womb is no different than saying that they would be better off dead today. If you don't think they'd be better off dead today (which your counterargument would indicate) then you don't agree with them that they would have been better off aborted. But then, again, if they aren't ending their own lives today then it would appear that they find some value in the lives they were given.

The unborn are living humans, and the vast majority, if allowed to live, would grow up to have fulfilling lives that they would find valuable and would not want to terminate, and you want to justify killing them and denying them that future for the micro-minority that MIGHT want to end their own lives someday. Given your reaction to extending your logic to people you care about, the conclusion is that your support for abortion is rooted, as mass killings usually are, in the dehumanization of the victims.

jmotivator said:

You are doubling down on a very strange argument. People who have the ability to reason the value of their own life also have the ability to end it. Why don't they?

For you to argue that it would be better for them to be dead in the womb is no different than saying that they would be better off dead today. If you don't think they'd be better off dead today (which your counterargument would indicate) then you don't agree with them that they would have been better off aborted. But then, again, if they aren't ending their own lives today then it would appear that they find some value in the lives they were given.

The unborn are living humans, and the vast majority, if allowed to live, would grow up to have fulfilling lives that they would find valuable and would not want to terminate, and you want to justify killing them and denying them that future for the micro-minority that MIGHT want to end their own lives someday. Given your reaction to extending your logic to people you care about, the conclusion is that your support for abortion is rooted, as mass killings usually are, in the dehumanization of the victims.

Click to expand...

If they would (legitimately) find their lives fulfilling...why is it ok to force women to give up that same exact choice for themselves?

We're back where this always ends up...of course I recognize the unborn as human, having DNA. I'm not ignorant.

I'm also not ignorant enough to endow them with all sorts of personalization that does not exist yet. And dwell and wallow in that. It's not there yet. It may even fail to develop to be born.

And then of course there's a Constitutional angle that might make sense to you, regarding equality, which SCOTUS has considered and ruled on, for example, blacks and women. We are equal. The same consideration was given the unborn and they were not found to be equal. There's good reason for that:


I value the unborn, I just value ALL born people more. Now can you be as honest?

Because:

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

This means that you believe the govt should be able to overcome her consent over her own bodily sovereignty and demand she remain pregnant, prioritizing the unborn.

jmotivator said:

I'm simply applying your logic, if that is hyperbole then that would indicate that somewhere deep down you realize your own argument is extreme.

Click to expand...

I created no hyperbole, you did. I didnt inflate my statement at all. Would you endorse a law making self-defense illegal just because there werent 'many' other types of justified killing?

jmotivator said:

I'm simply applying your logic, if that is hyperbole then that would indicate that somewhere deep down you realize your own argument is extreme.



You are doubling down on a very strange argument. People who have the ability to reason the value of their own life also have the ability to end it. Why don't they?

For you to argue that it would be better for them to be dead in the womb is no different than saying that they would be better off dead today. If you don't think they'd be better off dead today (which your counterargument would indicate) then you don't agree with them that they would have been better off aborted. But then, again, if they aren't ending their own lives today then it would appear that they find some value in the lives they were given.

The unborn are living humans, and the vast majority, if allowed to live, would grow up to have fulfilling lives that they would find valuable and would not want to terminate, and you want to justify killing them and denying them that future for the micro-minority that MIGHT want to end their own lives someday. Given your reaction to extending your logic to people you care about, the conclusion is that your support for abortion is rooted, as mass killings usually are, in the dehumanization of the victims.

Click to expand...

You are essentially saying that anyone who feels their mother should have aborted should commit suicide, thereby causing great psychological harm to their survivors. You aren't the first person to do that here, I doubt you will be the last. It's a lame argument. And certainly not pro-life.

Lursa said:

If they would (legitimately) find their lives fulfilling...why is it ok to force women to give up that same exact choice for themselves?

Click to expand...

Because I frown on a "fulfilling life" that involves the death of someone else. I mean, who are we to standing in the asperations of Jeffrey Dahmer, right? :roll:

We're back where this always ends up...of course I recognize the unborn as human, having DNA. I'm not ignorant.

I'm also not ignorant enough to endow them with all sorts of personalization that does not exist yet. And dwell and wallow in that. It's not there yet. It may even fail to develop to be born.

Click to expand...

It's not ignorance to accept that other humans are also humans and you shouldn't kill them for a "fulfilling life".

And then of course there's a Constitutional angle that might make sense to you, regarding equality, which SCOTUS has considered and ruled on, for example, blacks and women. We are equal. The same consideration was given the unborn and they were not found to be equal. There's good reason for that:

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.​

Click to expand...

My argument is "I know the law, but it is a moral abomination to snuff the life of other humans because they aren't convenient". Your counter argument is "I know they are humans, but it's legal to kill them so I don't see a problem."

I'm at peace with my position.

I value the unborn, I just value ALL born people more. Now can you be as honest?

Click to expand...

No, literally you don't value the unborn. How can you value something that you would see brutally killed for no established reason? (Hint: You can't)

"I really value you, but if someone decides that their happiness requires you die then you gotta go. Don't worry though, I value you both equally." - Someone who doesn't value you

Because:

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

Click to expand...

I do value them both equally. What I don't value equally if the horribly uneven burden you want to place on the two. On the one hand you have a 9 month pregnancy, on the other you have death... those are not equal.

This means that you believe the govt should be able to overcome her consent over her own bodily sovereignty and demand she remain pregnant, prioritizing the unborn.

Click to expand...

The government can "overcome her consent" to a great many things involving her life and her body. The government can also overcome the desires of others when those desires threaten the lives of others.

Scrabaholic said:

You are essentially saying that anyone who feels their mother should have aborted should commit suicide, thereby causing great psychological harm to their survivors. You aren't the first person to do that here, I doubt you will be the last. It's a lame argument. And certainly not pro-life.

Click to expand...

No, I am not saying that, even a little. I am arguing the opposite. I am saying that people who wish they were never born are at least presented with the choice. I would argue with them strongly that they shouldn't kill themselves. If don't kill themselves then that is an indication that deep down they don't want to be dead. There is no indication that anyone who wants to die can't find peace through therapy and treatment.

What you are arguing is that people with depression should be dead... I am saying they shouldn't be. I mean, even worse, the kind of broken logic employed by Lursa is like trying to Minority Report depression and just kill them before they have a chance to become depressed.

Lursa said:

I created no hyperbole, you did. I didnt inflate my statement at all. Would you endorse a law making self-defense illegal just because there werent 'many' other types of justified killing?

Click to expand...

I did not. I took your own logic and applied to other humans. The reason you found it extreme is because your position is extreme.

jmotivator said:

Because I frown on a "fulfilling life" that involves the death of someone else. I mean, who are we to standing in the asperations of Jeffrey Dahmer, right? :roll:

Click to expand...

A life is more than just breathing. You wrote 'fulfilling.' That is the leading of a life and the choices one makes.

Can you please explain (as requested clearly) why the unborn is more entitled to that than the woman?

They cannot be treated equally. Not legally, not ethically, not practically.

If the law supports anything less than choice, it would be valuing the unborn more than women.

As it stands, the law values women more than the unborn.

It's not ignorance to accept that other humans are also humans and you shouldn't kill them for a "fulfilling life".

Click to expand...

No, it's bias. One or the other keeps the other from fulfilling their life.

Again, please explain to me why the unborn should get priority over the woman doing the exact same thing?

And if the woman didnt feel that having a baby would harm her ability to fulfull her life, she'd have it, right? Are you saying the govt should be the one to decide for a woman?

My argument is "I know the law, but it is a moral abomination to snuff the life of other humans because they aren't convenient". Your counter argument is "I know they are humans, but it's legal to kill them so I don't see a problem."

I'm at peace with my position.

Click to expand...

Ah, so living, functioning, working thru a pregnancy and raising a child is 'just inconvenient?'

Well let's see:

And we're back to fulfilling a life. The entirety of a life. If you reduce the entirety of a life to a string of 'conveniences,' then please dont force that view on women who do not share it.

jmotivator said:

I did not. I took your own logic and applied to other humans. The reason you found it extreme is because your position is extreme.

Click to expand...

Yes...that there is logic in justifiable killing being legal.

My position isnt extreme...it's the law :doh

It's only your assumption that enables your belief that human DNA makes the unborn equal to born people.

jmotivator said:

No, literally you don't value the unborn. How can you value something that you would see brutally killed for no established reason? (Hint: You can't)

"I really value you, but if someone decides that their happiness requires you die then you gotta go. Don't worry though, I value you both equally." - Someone who doesn't value you

Click to expand...

That cute little attempt at analogy doesnt work. Because it involves infringing on someone's right to life. The unborn has none. The govt has specified that it has none. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

The great thing here, is that "I" dont decide for anyone. Only the woman impacted by that pregnancy makes that decision.

Who else is qualified? And based on what? The Constitution protects a woman from having her bodily sovereignty invaded by the govt.

I'm giving you credit for understanding that 'less' does not mean zero. Please dont disappoint me.

Would I love it if every pregnancy could come to term? Sure. But not at the expense of women's Constitutional rights, our bodily sovereignty, and our self-determination.

I do value them both equally. What I don't value equally if the horribly uneven burden you want to place on the two. On the one hand you have a 9 month pregnancy, on the other you have death... those are not equal.

Click to expand...

Nope, you dont. Just writing the words doesnt make it true. Read it again. If you would violate a woman's right to her health, life, self-determination, and herConstitutional rights just to enable the exact same things for the unborn, you value the unborn more than women. This is a fact.

OTOH, you are in good company.. 99.9% of all pro-life people refuse to acknowledge this fact and leave the discussion rather than recognize that they really have no moral High Ground on this issue. They cant have it both ways, so they deny, then run off.

The government can "overcome her consent" to a great many things involving her life and her body. The government can also overcome the desires of others when those desires threaten the lives of others.

Click to expand...

Yup, but they must have probable cause and due process in order to do so.

Pregnancy isnt a crime. What reason would the govt have to violate women's rights in order to force them into remaining pregnant?

And again, the govt is smart enough to value it's contributing members...the PEOPLE as written...more than potential contributing members which may never even survive to birth. When born...and equal (I note you completely ignored that paragraph about how they are demonstrably NOT equal, btw...yeah, if you acknowledge it you might have to address it!)...then they have the same rights as people.

Sometimes I think the forest gets lost 'for the trees' on this issue.

--The number of abortions goes down every year.

--most women still choose to give birth

--there are over 100,000 kids in the US waiting to be adopted right now. Is it ethical to actively encourage women to give birth when they dont want a baby if there's no where for it to go? Sure, maybe that new infant will be adopted...at the expense of one of the older kids out there, waiting and hoping for a family?

Lursa said:

A life is more than just breathing. You wrote 'fulfilling.' That is the leading of a life and the choices one makes.

Can you please explain (as requested clearly) why the unborn is more entitled to that than the woman?

They cannot be treated equally. Not legally, not ethically, not practically.

If the law supports anything less than choice, it would be valuing the unborn more than women.

As it stands, the law values women more than the unborn.

Click to expand...

The woman isn't denied a fulfilling life. Can you explain why pregnancy is more detrimental to a fulfilling life than... dying?

No, it's bias. One or the other keeps the other from fulfilling their life.

Again, please explain to me why the unborn should get priority over the woman doing the exact same thing?

And if the woman didnt feel that having a baby would harm her ability to fulfull her life, she'd have it, right? Are you saying the govt should be the one to decide for a woman?

Click to expand...

Good grief. The world is filled with billions of examples of women who got pregnant, had children and had a fulfilling life. There is no example of anyone who went on to have a fulfilling life after they were killed.

Ah, so living, functioning, working thru a pregnancy and raising a child is 'just inconvenient?'

Click to expand...

Would you choose that or death?

Well let's see:

Do you have a list of the statistics that show the reasons women have abortions? There are many out there, none list 'convenience.'

Do you teach your kids that finishing school is a 'convenience?' That building a career instead of a minimum wage job is a 'convenience?' That going to college or trade school is a 'convenience?' That not going on public assistance to feed a kid you cant afford is a 'convenience?' That holding onto a job so you can feed the family you already do have is a 'convenience?' That developing a job into a career 'is a convenience?' That being able to raise your kids in a safe neighborhood is a 'convenience?' That fulfilling their potential and contributing to society is just a 'convenience?'

Do you? Those arent rhetorical questions.

Well, maybe you do. Maybe you see your life as just a bunch of 'conveniences' all strung together. *I* dont, I value my life and making the most of it.


But if you hold people's lives so cheaply, I can see why you wouldnt value a woman's decision to do what's best for her and for her family, current and future.​

And we're back to fulfilling a life. The entirety of a life. If you reduce the entirety of a life to a string of 'conveniences,' then please dont force that view on women who do not share it.

Click to expand...

What a strange argument. Do you teach your child that if they don't finish school they might as well have never lived? Because that is the absurd comparison you are making..

And again, there are endless examples of women who finish school while pregnant, or with children.

Lursa said:

Yes...that there is logic in justifiable killing being legal.

My position isnt extreme...it's the law :doh

It's only your assumption that enables your belief that human DNA makes the unborn equal to born people.

Click to expand...

Your position is still extreme whether or not it is the law. The act of making something the law doesn't moderate it. You know that to be true... or you should.

Lursa said:

That cute little attempt at analogy doesnt work. Because it involves infringing on someone's right to life.

Click to expand...

The only life infringed on is the one that is being killed.

The unborn has none. The govt has specified that it has none. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Click to expand...

Again with the silly non-argument. The anti-abortion argument is specifically an opposition to the law. We who oppose the law accept that it is currently the law.

Your position would place you squarely in opposition to the abolition movement in the 1800s... "What is the big deal with slavery. It's the law!"

The great thing here, is that "I" dont decide for anyone. Only the woman impacted by that pregnancy makes that decision.

Who else is qualified? And based on what? The Constitution protects a woman from having her bodily sovereignty invaded by the govt.

Click to expand...

You value it above life, I get it. You dehumanize the victim so you can feel better about doing it, I get it. It a pattern as old as time.

I'm giving you credit for understanding that 'less' does not mean zero. Please dont disappoint me.

Would I love it if every pregnancy could come to term? Sure. But not at the expense of women's Constitutional rights, our bodily sovereignty, and our self-determination.

Click to expand...

Your argument is a logical dead end. You are attempting to defend a law on the grounds that it is a law. That is a non-starter in any case, but even more troubling when it is in defense of ending the life of fellow humans...

Nope, you dont. Just writing the words doesnt make it true. Read it again. If you would violate a woman's right to her health, life, self-determination, and herConstitutional rights just to enable the exact same things for the unborn, you value the unborn more than women. This is a fact.

Click to expand...

No, you have not. You have valued life over death. Bringing a baby to term is not an equal limiter on life to death. It simply isn't. I mean, life doesn't end with pregnancy, for starters.

OTOH, you are in good company.. 99.9% of all pro-life people refuse to acknowledge this fact and leave the discussion rather than recognize that they really have no moral High Ground on this issue. They cant have it both ways, so they deny, then run off.

Click to expand...

You seem to forget that you are attempting to argue the law (illogically), your attempt to now make the death of innocent people a moral imperative is ghastly.

Yup, but they must have probable cause and due process in order to do so.

Pregnancy isnt a crime. What reason would the govt have to violate women's rights in order to force them into remaining pregnant?

And again, the govt is smart enough to value it's contributing members...the PEOPLE as written...more than potential contributing members which may never even survive to birth. When born...and equal (I note you completely ignored that paragraph about how they are demonstrably NOT equal, btw...yeah, if you acknowledge it you might have to address it!)...then they have the same rights as people.

Click to expand...

Maybe one day you will step back and realized you just justified the Government's right to kill humans they feel are not productive members of society. I hope, anyway... for your sake.

Scrabaholic said:

You are essentially saying that anyone who feels their mother should have aborted should commit suicide, thereby causing great psychological harm to their survivors. You aren't the first person to do that here, I doubt you will be the last. It's a lame argument. And certainly not pro-life.

Click to expand...

Happy Birthday, Scrab!

jmotivator said:

What you are arguing is that people with depression should be dead...

Click to expand...

No, I am not and please do not ever lie about me or what I have said or not said again.

jmotivator said:

I'm at peace with my position.

Click to expand...

I am at peace w/ mine.

No, literally you don't value the unborn.

Click to expand...

You don't value women. If you did, you'd not want to force us to gestate and give birth against our will.

I do value them both equally. What I don't value equally if the horribly uneven burden you want to place on the two. On the one hand you have a 9 month pregnancy, on the other you have death... those are not equal.

Click to expand...

A 9 month pregnancy that YOU will never, ever be faced with. Easy to be against abortion when you know you will never be pregnant, isn't it?

Scrabaholic said:

No, I am not and please do not ever lie about me or what I have said or not said again.

Click to expand...

I am actually drawing the logical conclusion based on the assertion that some who are born wish they weren't. The answer coming from YOUR side of the argument, not mine, is that those people are examples that favor abortion... essentially a desire to kill them before they could be depressed.