The majority do not miscarry and that’s like saying “People die in accidents so murder is fine.”
Yet most women in 1900 didn’t support abortion.
The exact numbers are unknown but yes it’s quite possible that most miscarry. And it matters because you were arguing that its “potential” humanity is more important than her ***actual ***humanity. If it dies then it never had any potential.
So?
Knock off the perasonal insults.
Address the statements without making claims about the other poster.
[ /Moderating ]
When you say “convenience”, does it stem from the belief that carrying a pregnancy to term followed by a multi-year commitment to the human being that emerges is in any way comparable with being able to go to the 24-hour grocery store at 3 a.m. to get a carton of milk? The latter is “convenient” while implying the former is merely “inconvenient” is a vast understatement.
Hint: I didn’t change what you were saying, and accusing me of doing so is rather insulting. Is this dodge the only response you can come up with?
To pretend that by denying legal abortions you are not compelling women to choose between shouldering the burden of pregnancy/childbearing or finding an illegal method of abortion is ludicrous. I mean, let’s look at the cases:
-
you eliminate the possibility of the woman illegally aborting herself. This way lies constant observation and/or imprisonment.
-
your population of women would never, ever consider a back alley abortion, for reasons unrelated to the killing of the fetus.
-
your population of women is so placidly accepting of the anti-choice law that every single one of them obligingly keeps all the fetuses around through birth.
-
Some women who want abortions to go to desperate lengths to engineer the effect when prevented from getting it professionally done. (Note: this is the bit you claim I’m making up.)
As best I can tell, one of these must be the case. Now, 2 is demonstrably false now. Women get illegal abortions. Is it plausible that women will become less inclined to get illegal abortions when they for some reason have become vastly more inclined to get abortions in general? I’ll answer for you: no, it’s not plausible. Case 2 is thus dismissed as a non-possibility.
Similarly, 3 is disproven by the fact that women do, in fact, get illegal abortions. So, it is similarly not a possibility. Despite the rampant delusion that some anti-choice people seem to entertain.
Therefore, inevitably, when you propose banning abortion, you are proposing either 1 or 4. And I didn’t think you were proposing locking all the women up. Therefore, you ARE putting forth a plan that will increase the incidence of illegal abortion. Whether you like it or not.
Denying this is simply closing your eyes to the obvious consequences of an action - and really, if you can do that, so can I. Old people dying of starvation? Society collapsing as it completely and permanently gentrifies? What does that have to with a birthrate of zero? I don’t see the connection! Ergo there is no reason whatsoever to ban abortion. QED.
Took me awhile to revisit the thread but I see we haven’t really gone anywhere.
Dude, I read the thread and the only thing I saw beyond “Yikes, No more humans!” was the post about the elderly starving, dying, and rioting. People have been saying that the “Rape Camp/Breeding Farm” scenario is far fetched. IMHO, so was the comment about the elderly descending into chaos just because there was no generation was following them.
Please explain how that scenario is inevitable.
Before reading this thread I would not have assumed that people would fall into a state of panic because of low or near-zero birth rates. I’m not saying that the stagnation of reproduction wouldn’t concern me, I just don’t see the portents of the apocalypse.
I can see the world going batshit if we found out about an extinction event like an asteroid. If I knew I only had 2yrs left, I sure as shit wouldn’t go to work or pay taxes, I imagine criminal-types would do far worse. The no-reproduction scenario doesn’t carry the same weight, we’re all going to keep living, it’s just that no one’s coming up behind us. I don’t see the impetus to riot just because there aren’t children - people would still want the safety of society.
Now on a logistical level I think you have a point. There’s not going to be a lot of heavy industry done by withered old men and women. Problems would arise as medical and technical professionals died. While life would certainly get harder, I still don’t see how this would give blue-hairs impetus to riot.
I can see people accepting all kinds of conspiracy theories, mistrusting their government, and a lot of folks turning to religion. It would be scary but it wouldn’t be an apocalyptic blood bath.
Okay, no baby killing for you, I get that. I wasn’t trying to ferret out who was Pro-Life and who was Pro-Choice, I think we’re all illustrating our opinions quite clearly.
I’m just wondering why folks are so insistent that there MUST be another generation after us. I mean, I get it, I think the idea of my descendants living on is pretty damned cool and I also think that it would be pretty damned freaky and unnerving if almost no one could reproduce. However, I sill don’t understand the NEED for children. If I knew no more children were coming I’d still be around for another 40-60years, so would the people I love. I’d still have every reason to be moral, productive, and successful.
Someone said that people wouldn’t live out the end of Humanity peacefully, there would be looting and rioting. I don’t agree but I’m willing to be persuaded.
Others have said humans have to keep on trucking because of God; they have to live until the Rapture, Revelation, something like that.
So what is it for you? Do you think there need to be future generations because of religious belief, a possible dystopic future, desire for a legacy, humans have to keep breeding so we can build a ________.
I’m honestly not cocking my head like a puppy in an effort to piss people off and prolong the debate. I’m just curious.
Putting aside that I don’t believe in consequnces anymore, I think that a sane concern might be raised when the people farming the fields and driving the shipping trucks and stocking the store shelves all retire. In theory there would inevitably be a point where the ability to deliver food to the citizens would shrink smaller than the number of elderly mouths that need feeding. At that point you’re not talking about riots so much as death by starvation and illness on a relatively massive scale. Some people consider this to be a bad thing - and some subset of them think that the only/best way to avoid this situation is to do, er, whatever happens to be necessary to convince the fertile young women to have babies.
Groovy, I can see that point. People would notice non-fertility right away though, our lack of a youthful workforce isn’t going to sneak up and cripple us without warning. If they didn’t freak completely out and start rioting on the spot, people would foresee these logistical problems as easily as we have in this thread. Since the collapse of farming and industry would indeed be inevitable, I reckon folks would plan ahead rather than turn into a frothing mob. I could be giving everyone way too much credit though.
Now you’re even changing what YOU’RE saying. Do you not see a difference between “choose between” in this post, and what you posted previously?
I’m frankly finding this pattern of inaccurate paraphrases both of yourself and of myself irritating, and I’m not thrilled about engaging further with you unless you knock it off.
This is an interesting point. If people figured out some way to plan for an entire generation to subsist on their savings, as it were–if they could realistically set up self-maintaining power-plants, hospitals etc., and if they could set aside enough food to feed them in their waning years–then my major objection to allowing the end of humanity would be satisfied.
I really have no ethical interest in maintaining our species. Aesthetic, sure, but I don’t confuse aesthetics and ethics. If we can figure out how to prevent mass starvation and disease (and probably worse, as scarcity leads inevitably to conflict in our species), then I would consider forced pregnancies among women (or men, if we had the technology) to be unethical.
Multi year commitment? You know there are safe surrender laws hear in the US where immediatly after birth you can leave the child to be adopted.
I’m getting tired of your selective quoting which you do for the express and exact purpose of making it look like I’m paraphrasing poorly. Oh wow, when you lop things up and take everything out of context, I look like I’m paraphrasing inaccurately! What a shock! Wowwie!
I’ll be very frank. I am not shifting my position, and you know it. I am not misparaphrasing you, and you know it. And you haven’t been engaging with me since you started these ad hominem smokescreen tactics, so it’s not much of a threat to say that you’re going to stop engaging with me now.
It’ll never happen - you think we’re great at planning? Us? Humans? Are you kidding? 
For situational ethics to make something unethical ethical, the thing has to be the best possible approach, ethically speaking. Given that “forced pregnancies” may or may not mean “rape pits” (depending on what you’ll do if the women decide to use abstinence as birth control, as has been mentioned in this thread), it may or may not be difficult to argue that forcing pregnancies is the most ethical course of action possible.
For it to be a mere inconvenience, a woman needs to be able to dump the fetus before it starts doing “inconvenient” things to her body. To deny that is to make the word “inconvenient” worse than meaningless.
Yes the mother may feel birth pains but quite likely she can go to a hospital where the birth will be cushioned with medicene.
But we’re not talking about the U.S.; we’re talking about the world. This is a species-wide problem. I just don’t see the poor people of Uganda or Paraguay managing to drop their unwanted infants off at Texas hospitals, do you?
I can tell you from experience that morning sickness, weight gain, round ligament pain, and all sorts of other things are VERY inconvenient, and there is no medication for these. Did you think pregnancies are only inconvenient during the labor pains?
Well this is about the US. In Uganda/Paraguay and so on such options as birth control can be used.
Pregnancy and birth cause a lot more than pain. They cause permanent damage, and can result in death.
The latter is rare in the US.
In part because women aren’t being forced to give birth.
As near as I can tell, every sentence in this paragraph is incorrect, so there you go.