I agree that the draft is wrong, too. Are you trying to make the point that the draft is bad, or that sometimes it’s okay to do things to people against their wills?
So… basically like most of human history.
Our ancestors were horrible people, and you know what? Call me selfish, but I’m glad they survived, no matter the cost. I wouldn’t have forgiven them if they hadn’t.
I also agree that the draft is wrong. If you can’t get enough volunteers, perhaps you should consider that the war in question isn’t worth fighting.
Oh, please. As unfair as things have been for women throughout history there’s been no shortage of women willingly, in fact enthusiastically seeking out men and getting pregnant by them.
Well, I would have! I would have been the most forgiving nonexistent being in history!
I’ve seen the movie, and the one pregnant woman isn’t seen as the savior of humanity. An extremist group wants to use her as a political pawn. The main character is trying to get her safely to a mysterious group of scientists said to be working on a cure for infertility while avoiding the attention of the totalitarian local government. (The woman is an illegal foreign refugee, and the government has a brutal policy toward such people.) Since the pregnant woman is apparently the only fertile woman in nearly two decades, she could become a great symbol of hope for the masses and would also presumably be of great interest to the infertility scientists, but none of the characters seem to believe that she’s going to singlehandedly (singlewombedly?) save the human race. It’s just that she’s the only hope they’ve had for a long time of anything changing.
I don’t think it necessarily follows that if the draft is OK, that it’s OK for society to force you to do anything with your body though, in which case the draft could hypothetically be OK, and forced non-abortion not OK.
Even taking the draft out of the equation, society pretty much forces us to to do other things - such as wearing clothes in public or refraining from urination in certain places - so if it’s an all-or-nothing argument, then forced non-abortion would have to be OK in a society that expects people not to walk around naked and not piss in the streets - but it doesn’t make any sense that way.
I think there’s also a difference between a woman having a lot of pregnancies because of circumstance (lack of birth control/access to abortion) and a woman giving birth because society has decided she should.
I was referring to the fact that women have been treated as property for much of human history. This is no different.
Don’t get me wrong - I believe that the OP’s proposal will ultimately mean humanity’s descent into barbarism. The thing is, though, we’ve clawed our way out of barbarism before - in time, we’ll do it again. I have faith in humanity.
The bottom line is this: I think humanity is a good thing. I’m glad we exist - and I’m willing to pay any price to safeguard that existence. And if that means doing horrible, horrible things… well, at least we’ll have the chance to redeem ourselves.
Yes, I can’t see how it’s morally wrong to force women to give birth when humans are in danger of extinction. I will be willing to do anything to save humanity including this.
Aren’t you also willing to force them to give birth when humans are not in danger of extinction? Just as the normal way of things?
(If I have mixed you up with somebody else I penitently apologize.)
And a lousy movie.
Letting humanity die is more evil then any wrong we can do to an individual. Humanities survival is the ultimate end that justifies the means. As for those who claim that the future misogynistic dystopian society, that took these horrible actions to preserve itself, is not worth saving. No society remains static. I’m sure the more enlightened civilizations that emerge after the crisis is over are thankful for the sacrifices people made at the time. Or would people here prefer people had died out in the middle ages? I heard being a woman back then was no picnic.
How so?
Why?
Why?
Nobody will miss us if we quietly disappear from existence - the natural end of humanity is no more evil than the natural death of one human.
Since when?
I mean, even if we were to accept that the end justifies the means, which I don’t, what reason do we have to conclude that survival is the be-all and end-all of everything? I can easily think of scenarios which would make human survival a net negative for all concerned. (All humans will suffer endless tortures from now on, for example.)
Some might argue that losing our hard-gained humanity is a “fate worse than death”. I don’t see how that’s an easily-refuted position.
I think fetuses are human beings and think abortion is murder. So I’m pro-life.
Humanity is a beacon of light in this universe it must survive for all eternity until the Day of the Judgement or if not forever.
Humanity doesn’t seem worth it if only half the population is really seen as fully human, though.
The universe doesn’t know we exist. If you are that religious and believe in that Day of Judgment rigamarole, why worry about such things?
Oh, I would have faith in humanity right up until the time I get raped and forced to bear children so that you can… um… have the nice warm glow knowing that there are babies, possibly girls, for future men to rape and impregnate?
Woo?
Women in past ages might not have known that there ever could be anything else. Now we do.
This isn’t even about you surviving as a person. It’s about you (general you) deciding you have a right to children. Not just a right to your life, but a right to future lives.