-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Abortion, yo.
- Thread starter Battlecow
- Start date
- Status
MK26
Smash Master
^what he said
before you guys start spouting crap about overpopulation have some facts to back that up
the us is not in a population crisis
having less young people is not a good thing with a large, entitled population of boomers hitting retirement age
before you guys start spouting crap about overpopulation have some facts to back that up
the us is not in a population crisis
having less young people is not a good thing with a large, entitled population of boomers hitting retirement age
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
That argument is irrefutable because the only way to pay for the elderly is to have more people. Then, you need even more to pay for the others.
We have a dwindling supply of drinkable water and farmable land. If we don't start curbing the growth even a little bit, we will have problems in a decade or so.
We have a dwindling supply of drinkable water and farmable land. If we don't start curbing the growth even a little bit, we will have problems in a decade or so.
MK26
Smash Master
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/money_politics_law/boom_moves_along.htm
What is irrefutable is that the US is getting older. Limiting the population rate is the last thing the country needs. "Overpopulation" is the last argument that should be used in favour of abortion.
global-wolf
Smash Champion
The current population growth is with abortion legal. Making it illegal would make the population climb faster. Though more young people means more resources to support the elderly, the young people will grow old, and they will need more young people to take care of them, and so on. In another 20 or so years, the baby boomers will have mostly died.
We have enough resources in the USA to support a larger population; we're a snake swallowing a big-*** mouse called the baby boom. Keeping our population relatively stable- little to no growth OR decline, long-run- means that we can get back to being a younger, more efficient society. Or we could just randomly euthanize a bunch of oldsters. I'm for that.
There is no growth problem because there is no growth.
There is no growth problem because there is no growth.
And people think we're not in a utilitarian slippery slope....
I find it interesting that with regards to overpopulation, people always assume the issue with the number of people, not the way we support it. This may sound really uneducated, but I think the big problem is that we've over-urbanised society, so now it costs far more in resources to sustaint the life of one person than it does in more traditional, rural societies/tribes. Of course to reverse that problem would take centuries and is essentially unthinkable, we would never do something like that.
But what backs up my point is that we technically don't have too many people, it's the opposite; statistically white civilisation is actually dying out, due to low offspring rates per couple, it's just immigration that's sustatining our nations. So something must be wrong with our system if we're claiming we're overpopulated when in fact our race is slowly dieing out.
But again, overpopulation talk is irrelevant in this thread until someone explains why this should apply exclusively to fetuses, which would entail an argument suggesting that the fetus is distinct from other stages of the human.
So again, let's get back on track peeps.
I find it interesting that with regards to overpopulation, people always assume the issue with the number of people, not the way we support it. This may sound really uneducated, but I think the big problem is that we've over-urbanised society, so now it costs far more in resources to sustaint the life of one person than it does in more traditional, rural societies/tribes. Of course to reverse that problem would take centuries and is essentially unthinkable, we would never do something like that.
But what backs up my point is that we technically don't have too many people, it's the opposite; statistically white civilisation is actually dying out, due to low offspring rates per couple, it's just immigration that's sustatining our nations. So something must be wrong with our system if we're claiming we're overpopulated when in fact our race is slowly dieing out.
But again, overpopulation talk is irrelevant in this thread until someone explains why this should apply exclusively to fetuses, which would entail an argument suggesting that the fetus is distinct from other stages of the human.
So again, let's get back on track peeps.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
How does an urban life cost more than a rural life? Urbanization should make it easier to support higher levels of population. If everything is rural, then we will run out of land a lot faster.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
I'm pretty sure you are incorrect here. The cost of you getting food from farmers is much much less than you getting it yourself. This is due to economies of scale. There are a few farmers nowadays with massive amounts of land, so they find the most efficient ways to grow/harvest tons of crops (like having machines etc).
Kanelol
Smash Lord
It's not a human being inside another human being until reaches the point of viability outside the host. While the baby does continue to rely on the mother for nourishment post-POV, the theoretical fact that IT DOESNT HAVE TO is what draws the line between moral and immoral when it comes to when exactly during the pregnancy a fetus is terminated.
Pre-POV, a fetus is a parasite. Nothing more. Why don't you go ahead and rail against people who had tapeworms removed? Just because their lifestyle doesn't accommodate having a tapeworm inside them and you've been consitionalized by society to believe that it's a tapeworms right to be inside of someone doesn't mean it's not still a parasitic burden.
I know that it's kind of a vague argument and most of you will nitpick minor things about it instead of refuting the actual point, but hey. I interject where I can.
I think, therefore I am. A comatose fetus floating about in amniotic fluid is arguably completely lacking thought. It's a lump growing in someones uterus, metaphorically comparable to a benign tumor of some variety. Or a tapeworm. On another note, I'm genuinely upset that people who seem legitimately intelligent have so easily fallen victim to the arbitrary agenda and mass brainwashing of the radically right wing.
Pre-POV, a fetus is a parasite. Nothing more. Why don't you go ahead and rail against people who had tapeworms removed? Just because their lifestyle doesn't accommodate having a tapeworm inside them and you've been consitionalized by society to believe that it's a tapeworms right to be inside of someone doesn't mean it's not still a parasitic burden.
I know that it's kind of a vague argument and most of you will nitpick minor things about it instead of refuting the actual point, but hey. I interject where I can.
Can there be a rule or something against making blanket statements like this that are clearly opinion and don't contribute anything to the conversation?
I think, therefore I am. A comatose fetus floating about in amniotic fluid is arguably completely lacking thought. It's a lump growing in someones uterus, metaphorically comparable to a benign tumor of some variety. Or a tapeworm. On another note, I'm genuinely upset that people who seem legitimately intelligent have so easily fallen victim to the arbitrary agenda and mass brainwashing of the radically right wing.
"Killing babies is wrong" is not an arbitrary opinion; it's one held by 99.9999% of everyone ever. Are fetuses babies? I can't see a difference. The point of viability thing is arbitrary; if I needed some dude's blood to combat a rare disease I had or w/e, does that make me not-alive? What if the fetus were sentient and had the IQ of an adult; would it deserve death due to its parasitic nature? The whole parasite thing makes no sense. Tapeworms die because they inconvenience humans and because no one thinks they or any other similarly low form of life deserves to live if it inconveniences humans, not because they're parasites. Their parasitism is not in and of itself a capital punishment, and therefore the POV (lolll) thing is BS.
And lol at "brainwashing of the radically right wing." You're the brainwashed one, buddy. "Their bodies, their choice"? Really? An obviously misleading statement, and yet you repeated it word-for-word like a good little puppet.
And lol at "brainwashing of the radically right wing." You're the brainwashed one, buddy. "Their bodies, their choice"? Really? An obviously misleading statement, and yet you repeated it word-for-word like a good little puppet.
global-wolf
Smash Champion
Animal babies are also babies. What makes human babies fall under the "can't kill" category is that they're people. But when a human embryo is forming it has nothing that can let it be called a person. It does not remotely look like a person, it cannot function like a person, and it does not have the consciousness of a person. Rather, it's a potential person. Just like sperm and eggs are, except this one got a chance to maybe grow.
I support abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy, when the baby begins to resemble an infant.
I support abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy, when the baby begins to resemble an infant.
global-wolf
Smash Champion
I think we should draw the line at the first trimester. That is somewhat after the embryo officially becomes a fetus. Here is a chart with stages of pregnancy: http://www.womenhealthtips.net/wp-c...4/Understanding-Early-Stages-of-Pregnancy.jpg
ballin4life
Smash Hero
You're not looking very hard. In fact, part of the purpose of the existence of the word "fetus" is to distinguish it from "baby" and "embryo".
No, but does that mean you 100% should get that dude's blood? What if he doesn't want to give it to you? Is it ok for you to TAKE it from him?
What if a person (sentient) were trespassing on your property and threatening to kill you?
Neither side of this is productive. Everyone will always claim that their opponent is the brainwashed one - and simply thinking like this means you aren't open to new ideas.
Kanelol
Smash Lord
Perhaps the brainwashing comment was unnecessary, but I just don't see how railing against more individual freedom for people is morally upstanding. The purpose of government is to, first and foremost, protect the common good of the people.
Laws are created on the basis that they're designed to prevent one human being from harming another, so a law against aborting a fetus (by definition: NOT A HUMAN BEING) is completely counter intuitive.
@Battlecow, you do realize global-wolf and I are essentially making the same argument here, right?
I'll say it again, there's a definitive moment where a fetus stops being a fetus and starts being an actual human being. You can quibble over when exactly that is, but at that point you're just being difficult for difficulty's sake.
The fact of the matter is that if you let the argument shift from "Is abortion wrong" to "When during a pregnancy is it wrong", you've already admitted on some level, at some point, that abortion is acceptable.
Laws are created on the basis that they're designed to prevent one human being from harming another, so a law against aborting a fetus (by definition: NOT A HUMAN BEING) is completely counter intuitive.
@Battlecow, you do realize global-wolf and I are essentially making the same argument here, right?
I'll say it again, there's a definitive moment where a fetus stops being a fetus and starts being an actual human being. You can quibble over when exactly that is, but at that point you're just being difficult for difficulty's sake.
The fact of the matter is that if you let the argument shift from "Is abortion wrong" to "When during a pregnancy is it wrong", you've already admitted on some level, at some point, that abortion is acceptable.
Yeah, I don't think it's the state's place to interfere with things of a private matter. The person who is having a child has full individual sovereignty and has the ability to choose. The problem here isn't about the child; the child dying, while seemingly heartless, is a concession we have to be willing to accept in a modern day society. What you guys are assuming is that the child's life is far more important than the mother's life, and I think that's quite a hefty assumption. I come at this from a very Canadian perspective, but as said in the 1988 trial R vs Morgentaler, the court ruled abortion as a violation of security of a person. Woman have the right to do things with their bodies because their the ones who lives will be affected. They're the ones who will be consciously accepting what happens first, and they're the only person we can actually account the tangible consequences other than the birth of the child. Forcing a women to carry a fetus when she has other priorities and priorities is clearly a violation of security of a person and the decision of whether or not abortion shouldn't be arbitrarily given to the government.
A very similar case in the United States was that of Roe vs Wade, where abortion was deemed under the branch of rights known as the right of privacy.
Secondly, I would say we need to support abortion for those who have medical needs. This is a fairly straightforward argument; if the health of the women was to be damaged, we shouldn't be doing this. The life of those individuals in society justify abortion; just because people view abortion as immoral, that doesn't discount these individuals in society.
Thirdly, I think that abortion is really the only viable option. The alternatives are keeping the child, which in most cases isn't very viable financially, emotionally etc. or adoption which is equally as inviolable because firstly, the mother gains an emotional connection to the child so she doesn't want to give them up, or secondly because of a very flawed foster child program.
However, there is the third option that many of these people will take, which would be abortions that are illegal. We would be driving the abortion underground, and honestly, that's not something that would be in the best interests for us as a nation. Why? Because underground abortions don't have regulations so they're less safe, and they hold a criminal element which means it supports criminal activity as well such as drug trafficking.
So, I've identified two main problems, the two main burdens that I think those who support abortion need to prove; firstly, in the interests of society, it's found to be unconstitutional to ban abortion and secondly, in the interests of a government fighting crime, it's not a viable option either.
A very similar case in the United States was that of Roe vs Wade, where abortion was deemed under the branch of rights known as the right of privacy.
Secondly, I would say we need to support abortion for those who have medical needs. This is a fairly straightforward argument; if the health of the women was to be damaged, we shouldn't be doing this. The life of those individuals in society justify abortion; just because people view abortion as immoral, that doesn't discount these individuals in society.
Thirdly, I think that abortion is really the only viable option. The alternatives are keeping the child, which in most cases isn't very viable financially, emotionally etc. or adoption which is equally as inviolable because firstly, the mother gains an emotional connection to the child so she doesn't want to give them up, or secondly because of a very flawed foster child program.
However, there is the third option that many of these people will take, which would be abortions that are illegal. We would be driving the abortion underground, and honestly, that's not something that would be in the best interests for us as a nation. Why? Because underground abortions don't have regulations so they're less safe, and they hold a criminal element which means it supports criminal activity as well such as drug trafficking.
So, I've identified two main problems, the two main burdens that I think those who support abortion need to prove; firstly, in the interests of society, it's found to be unconstitutional to ban abortion and secondly, in the interests of a government fighting crime, it's not a viable option either.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
Well, if we really do equate abortion and murder, then it is totally fine to restrict people's freedoms (after all, you aren't free to murder people). Also adoption seems like a pretty good alternative. How can you say you develop a connection to the child when you were willing to terminate the pregnancy just a little while before?
Anyways, if we don't pay attention to Kane's rambling, we're approaching the point where arguments will do no good and everything becomes subjective.
@ballin'- If the fetus is going to kill the mother, abortions are OK (obviously). The dude-blood metaphor is flawed because the dude didn't create me and put me in a position where I needed his blood. Also he totally is brainwashed and I'm not; this isn't one of those subjective things where both sides are equally right and wrong and they just need to see that really, they're all the same.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
This isn't clear at all. Would you kill someone to take their blood, if you needed that blood to survive? Probably not, right? So why should you be able to kill the fetus just to keep yourself alive, if we follow that logic?
Ok, but most mothers who want to get abortions didn't create the child on purpose either. So why shouldn't you be able to remove the child if it's trespassing on your body against your will?
I didn't say it was. But one person says "you're brainwashed", the other person is 99% going to respond "no YOU'RE the one who is brainwashed" which is completely pointless.
So yeah, does anyone still disagree with the "Abortion is acceptable up to a certain point, whereupon the fetus becomes "human" enough to keep alive" perspective? We still don't really have reasonable ideas for when that would be; I confess, I don't know.
Because when you're bearing a child, your hormones essentially go off sending out the so called motherly instinct. When it's born, you become connected to the child at a hormonal level, which is physiological and isn't just some kind of choice. You're going to love the baby anyways. Once the baby is born, over 95% of the time you will choose to keep the child, despite how many people to have abortions.
What else is wrong with adoption? Adoption has actually a crap load of issues that usually are to do with damaging the child emotionally. Adopted children have more of a chance to be on drugs, commit suicide etc. simply because of the nature of their life.
I would also like to note that only 8% of women who have children did not use contraception. I got this information from about.com, so I'm not 100% if it's true, but it's an interesting number.
So anyways, what's different between contraceptives and abortion? Honestly, if the child can't feel pain during the first trimester, if they can't live completely independent of the mother, then isn't that almost the exact same as a contraceptive? I don't see how you piece this together; just because they're a fetus, they still don't fill. Sperm is a potential human. Eggs are potential humans. You can't just make this simple analogy that abortion = murder, because it's another type of birth control.
So what am I trying to prove here? Fetuses are special people, and while they hold potential to be a human, they don't have any personhood yet. Fetuses shouldn't be treated like regular humans, because honestly, they're not regular humans and that's been acknowledged.
BTW, don't you agree it will be driving abortion underground and abortion will happen more with greater harm to the women getting the procedure?
What else is wrong with adoption? Adoption has actually a crap load of issues that usually are to do with damaging the child emotionally. Adopted children have more of a chance to be on drugs, commit suicide etc. simply because of the nature of their life.
I would also like to note that only 8% of women who have children did not use contraception. I got this information from about.com, so I'm not 100% if it's true, but it's an interesting number.
So anyways, what's different between contraceptives and abortion? Honestly, if the child can't feel pain during the first trimester, if they can't live completely independent of the mother, then isn't that almost the exact same as a contraceptive? I don't see how you piece this together; just because they're a fetus, they still don't fill. Sperm is a potential human. Eggs are potential humans. You can't just make this simple analogy that abortion = murder, because it's another type of birth control.
So what am I trying to prove here? Fetuses are special people, and while they hold potential to be a human, they don't have any personhood yet. Fetuses shouldn't be treated like regular humans, because honestly, they're not regular humans and that's been acknowledged.
BTW, don't you agree it will be driving abortion underground and abortion will happen more with greater harm to the women getting the procedure?
So yeah. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
It's very physiological. It's not just a lot of faith, it's happened in the past, in situations where the women aren't able to take care of the child. That's why we see a lot of single mothers; in the best interests financially and emotionally, they would just put the child up for adoption, but they don't. Babies make them go crazy 
They're about double the chance of committing suicide, and a lot more are depressed, take drugs etc. but those statistics aren't as easy to come across. https://www.adoptionhealing.com/Suicide.htm
Only 8% have never used contraceptives. Fifty four percent used a contraceptive the month of pregnancy, and forty six percent have used contraceptives but not during the month of pregnancy. Only 8% have never used contraceptives. So that paints a much clearer picture. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
And yeah, of course, that's a point that is usually guaranteed to help those pro-abortion. I would say during the first trimester would be where the line should be drawn, and about eighty-six percent of all abortions happen during that period, which is also seen in the link above.
But the women will have a greater harm as well. Does the reduce of abortion, which is a procedure that I don't see as fundamentally wrong and alot of other people don't see as being fundamentally wrong, justify the lives of women in jeopardy?
They're about double the chance of committing suicide, and a lot more are depressed, take drugs etc. but those statistics aren't as easy to come across. https://www.adoptionhealing.com/Suicide.htm
Only 8% have never used contraceptives. Fifty four percent used a contraceptive the month of pregnancy, and forty six percent have used contraceptives but not during the month of pregnancy. Only 8% have never used contraceptives. So that paints a much clearer picture. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
And yeah, of course, that's a point that is usually guaranteed to help those pro-abortion. I would say during the first trimester would be where the line should be drawn, and about eighty-six percent of all abortions happen during that period, which is also seen in the link above.
But the women will have a greater harm as well. Does the reduce of abortion, which is a procedure that I don't see as fundamentally wrong and alot of other people don't see as being fundamentally wrong, justify the lives of women in jeopardy?
ballin4life
Smash Hero
Source for people drank less during prohibition?
"We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. The level of consumption remained virtually the same immediately after Prohibition as during the latter part of Prohibition, although consumption increased to approximately its pre-Prohibition level during the subsequent decade."
Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition
Jeffrey A. Miron; Jeffrey Zwiebel
The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and
Third Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1991), pp. 242-247.
You can just google these things, you know.
Kanelol
Smash Lord
Arguing with people who have already decided that they aren't going to change their opinions is pointless. Live your life, I'll live mine, wondrously content in all my baby killing glory
ballin4life
Smash Hero
First result on google: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017
"Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased."
Second: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol
"The evidence on alcohol consumption during Prohibition is incomplete"
"The fact that cirrhosis was substantially lower on average during Prohibition than before or after might suggest that Prohibition played a substantial role in reducing cirrhosis, but further examination suggests this conclusion is premature."
Fourth: http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm
"In truth, nobody really knows exactly how much alcohol consumption increased or decreased during Prohibition. The reason was simple enough -- people like Al Capone didn't pay taxes on their product and thereby report their production to the government."
Interesting opinion in the Debate Hall.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
Ok fine, but then don't tell me "you can google these things"
BC- I think you're funny and all that, but stop trying to deliberately portray an egoist image of yourself with comments like "if I actually cared how anyone but me felt", it makes it look more like a gimmick than a genuine life philosophy.
Kanelol
Smash Lord
ballin4life
Smash Hero
Don't push battlecow away from us Dre!BC- I think you're funny and all that, but stop trying to deliberately portray an egoist image of yourself with comments like "if I actually cared how anyone but me felt", it makes it look more like a gimmick than a genuine life philosophy.
He's taking time out of his busy schedule of having sex with hookers while making muscle poses and staring at himself in the mirror.
Ocean
Smash Master
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,810
- Slippi.gg
- OCEAN#0
seriously, be realistic. he doesn't do those things.
that would take time away from him rushing into helpless countries and installing democracy as the political system, while raising the american flag.
Kane post your own arguments I don't have time to read other people's
How dare y'all accuse me of being gimmicky.
I can screw hookers and muscle-pose and install democracy while wearing an American flag all at the same time, thank you very much.
How dare y'all accuse me of being gimmicky.
I can screw hookers and muscle-pose and install democracy while wearing an American flag all at the same time, thank you very much.
- Status