[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #529]
You say people who want to adopt in this country are bad people with bad values, so it's better to abort.
STUPIDLY FALSE, AGAIN. I said something quite different. It is better to abort future mouths-to-feed so long as any existing mouth-to-feed is starving. "Want" need not be a factor at all--there are lots of things in the world that people want but can't have. Perhaps you could explain exactly why, just because someone wants something, that person automatically deserves to have it?
You say abortion is OK because we can always make more. Got it.
THAT, AT LEAST, IS ACCURATE. If any aspect of that has a taint of wrongness about it, it is because of the concept of "waste". An abortion obviously wastes the biological resources that got invested into an unborn human. However, economists do have a saying about not throwing good money after bad, which means that once you have identified a problematic expense, it is better to excise it now instead of later, after having invested even more. (At some future time, of course, the expense might no longer be problematic....)
You say there are too many people in the world
TRUE
and we need to reduce that number. Got it.
SHOW ME WHERE I SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT. Mostly I talk about reducing the birth rate, which is a very different thing than the total number of already-existing humans. For the last 40 years or so, global human population has been growing at about 80 million new mouths-to-feed every year. But production of all relevant types of resources has not kept pace (some have, but not all, and so wages have not kept pace with expenses --remember when one man's salary sufficed to support a family, while nowadays both parents sometimes need two jobs each to do that?). Logically, if population
growth was stopped, we would have a chance to at least
try ensure that resource production, of all types, matched demand.
But why not mandatory birth control instead of abortion?
YOU ARE ELIMINATING CHOICE. That's why. One of the definitions of "democracy" goes something like this: Any person in a democracy has a chance to convince others to do things
his way (or
her way). The key word there is "convince". Not "force". Obviously abortion opponents don't actually have convincing arguments, since they are reduced to seeking ways to force their will upon others.
I totally reject your attempt to convert my support-of-choice into denial-of-choice!
You must really admire Hitler; he killed over 20 million.
AND THERE'S THE IDIOCY EXPECTED OF AN ABORTION OPPONENT WHO LACKS A CONVINCING ARGUMENT. Tsk, tsk!
Stalin killed over 30million. And Mao killed over 40 million.
MORE OF THE SAME IDIOCY. Since when does someone who supports choices for average folks want to emulate the forcing behavior of tyrants? Therefore I can only conclude you are "
projecting", trying to claim that others are doing what you actually (and secretly) do. Tsk, tsk!
Maybe we need a thermo-nuclear war to thin the herd... or a nice worldwide plague. How about some gas chambers?
AND AGAIN THE ABORTION OPPONENT BLATHERS ABOUT KILLING PERSONS INSTEAD OF NONPERSONS. Tsk, tsk! How can you possibly think you are making any sense whatsoever?
FORCE IS OFTEN EFFECTIVE. But that doesn't make it popular to those who prefer choice.
