Pro-life? Pro-murder?

[MattH]

Secondly, the double standards of first saying abortion is murder, but that it's okay to bring a child into this world and handing it off to complete strangers, is absolutely mindblowing.

you just don't get it do you? my best friend was adopted, and he didn't even know that he was adopted until his parents told him when he was 16, granted not every child is going to be brought into a good family but at least they have a fighting chance, unlike if they are killed in the womb.

[echo_trail]

Yeah MattH, I get it. I get that you have a different view on this than I do. Now please, leave this conversation to the rest of us.

"Most double standards exist for a reason" True dat, but that's a horrible reason to give into them. I refuse to accept peoples moronic ways, just because I can see what led to them.

And just because it's not a death vs death scenario, I still think it's very double standardish. And frankly I'm surprised that you're the one to argue with it, smeg. I know there's a chance that the kid will end up in good hands, and live happily ever after. Probably even a good chance. But you never know, do you? And I've seen enough people go through a horrible existence, to the point where they didn't wanna be a part of it anymore, and at the very least to the point where I thought, I'd not have my child grow up like that. If I have a child, I want it raised right and taken care for. And I can't make sure that happens until..
1. I'm old and experienced to have a t least some idea of what the responsibility is(I realise you can never fully prepare for fatherhood, or motherhood for that matter)
2. I have the economic foundation. Doesn't have to be much, just the basics.
3. I'm the one raising the kid, not the folks at the other end of the adoption line.
4. If I'm to raise the child with a partner, let it be someone I really trust etc, etc, etc..

Secondly, the double standards of first saying abortion is murder, but that it's okay to bring a child into this world and handing it off to complete strangers, is absolutely mindblowing.

What's mindblowing is that you think this is.  I've never once heard ANYONE say that adoption is as bad as you're making it out to be.  If this girl has no experience, desire, or means to raise a child, then putting that child into the hands of people with the will and capability to raise it is a wonderful alternative.  Everyone is a stranger to a baby; what difference does it make as long as the adoptive parents act like real ones?

Now, while the girl is gonna suffer psychological trauma anyway due to the extend of the experience, I dare say abortion would be the better way out. She'll still have to combat the anxiety and all, but it'll be that bit easier.

It's a lose-lose situation.  What if, years or even months down the line, she's struck with the guilt of destroying a life before it began? There's no coming back from that trauma.  If you keep the baby, you may initially regret it having a poor childhood, but people can (and do) overcome that.  You can't overcome being aborted.

So your take on it is that this girl should have the baby, regardless of her feelings about it?

Also, I realise I've done a poor job about clarifying my opinion. I'm not against adoption all together. A couple of good friends of mine had been talking about getting a baby, when she was diagnosed with some sort of bowel cancer, and as a result of the kemo, she's sterile. Adoption is the right choice, and I know a baby would grow up in a loving environment with them. But it's just something I would never do with my own kid, and I can definitely understand if others would feel the same way.

Also, I'm afraid my opinion on abortion may have come across rather lightly. I'm not a big fan of abortion actually, but I think there are cases where it's the right answer compared to having the baby. These are worst case scenarios, needles to say, but they do occur.

[Veritas]

jegus this thread moves fast

Saying that population will level off as it approaches 'carrying capacity' is a reassuring idea and would have merit if it weren't for the quest to save as many lives as we can. 

If you assume carrying capacity to be the actual limit that the earth can sustain human life, than yes, population will level off if not decrease when "carrying capacity" is reached, otherwise it is not the capacity. That is, the capacity of such a system is defined by its maximum and cannot merely be predicted by square footage. However, there must be an asymptote, as even if pyschological effects did not lower the population, a physical limit does exist.

Carrying capacity has a pretty specific ecological definition - the population size that the environment can support indefinitely. Species can, and do, overshoot that mark, resulting in a population crash.

It's a lose-lose situation.  What if, years or even months down the line, she's struck with the guilt of destroying a life before it began? There's no coming back from that trauma.  If you keep the baby, you may initially regret it having a poor childhood, but people can (and do) overcome that.  You can't overcome being aborted.

So uh

How is the trauma of having an abortion insurmountable, while the trauma of being a single mother/teenage mother/whatever the circumstance is?

Pro-lifers would argue that since a baby/fetus is fully human, the mother doesn't (and can't) own it.

Cool, let's just cut it out of her body and let it roam free then, since it's its own person.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

How is the trauma of having an abortion insurmountable, while the trauma of being a single mother/teenage mother/whatever the circumstance is?

Both may be significant sources of regret down the line, but I'm of the opinion that the regret for ending a life prematurely will always be worse than the regret for giving it a chance and ending up with a bad childhood.

Pro-lifers would argue that since a baby/fetus is fully human, the mother doesn't (and can't) own it.

Cool, let's just cut it out of her body and let it roam free then, since it's its own person.

As I said before, viability itself isn't the only factor for determining this sort of thing.  If you let a newborn baby "roam free", it's not going anywhere fast either.

But you never know, do you?

Annnnd you've hit upon the one thing that makes all this debate meaningless.  To me, this all boils down to whether or not a fetus is human.  If it is not, then the mother's rights are all that matters and abortion is acceptable.  If it is, then it deserves life and happiness just as much as the mother, and killing it is out of the question.  Since we can't confirm either way, all that remains is to postulate about all the "could-bes" and play up the positive aspects of our sides along with the negative aspects of our opposition.

I guess it still makes for some interesting talk though, right?

[Veritas]

How is the trauma of having an abortion insurmountable, while the trauma of being a single mother/teenage mother/whatever the circumstance is?

Both may be significant sources of regret down the line, but I'm of the opinion that the regret for ending a life prematurely will always be worse than the regret for giving it a chance and ending up with a bad childhood.

Do you have any basis for this opinion

Because honestly it sounds like you're just rationalizing your own stupid beliefs here

Pro-lifers would argue that since a baby/fetus is fully human, the mother doesn't (and can't) own it.

Cool, let's just cut it out of her body and let it roam free then, since it's its own person.

As I said before, viability itself isn't the only factor for determining this sort of thing.  If you let a newborn baby "roam free", it's not going anywhere fast either.

That's because "fully human" is completely undefined. It implies a person who's capable of making rational decisions, which obviously neither a fetus nor baby qualify for.

But you never know, do you?

Annnnd you've hit upon the one thing that makes all this debate meaningless.  To me, this all boils down to whether or not a fetus is human.  If it is not, then the mother's rights are all that matters and abortion is acceptable.  If it is, then it deserves life and happiness just as much as the mother, and killing it is out of the question.  Since we can't confirm either way, all that remains is to postulate about all the "could-bes" and play up the positive aspects of our sides along with the negative aspects of our opposition.

I guess it still makes for some interesting talk though, right?

What about the embryo? Do you believe that's human?

[Smegma]

"Most double standards exist for a reason" True dat, but that's a horrible reason to give into them. I refuse to accept peoples moronic ways, just because I can see what led to them.

Not giving into many basic human emotions and insticts is a difficult. In fact, you have just given into one by stating death = adoption. Certainly, raising your own child or having an influence on him/her would be the most beneficial, but to imply that death is just the same as adoption is brought almost all ethos.

Seen below is proof of this:

3. I'm the one raising the kid, not the folks at the other end of the adoption line.

Adoption forgoes your chance to spread your own memes through this child, while death not only disallows your own memetic replication but your genetic one as well. Given that options 1 and 2 are not fulfilled, and you cannot raise the child (thereby 3,4 being unfulfilled), that leaves you with 2 choices: adoption or abortion. The only logical response (without bringing up overpopulation) would be to allow the child for adoption. In this way, your genes still compete, and allowing them to compete is much more beneficial than never giving the child a chance.

However, your view point is to be expected as a typical human response, as humans are far from logical.

I know there's a chance that the kid will end up in good hands, and live happily ever after. Probably even a good chance. But you never know, do you? And I've seen enough people go through a horrible existence, to the point where they didn't wanna be a part of it anymore, and at the very least to the point where I thought, I'd not have my child grow up like that.

In the game of life, when it comes to reproducing, taking those chances almost always outweigh any realistic danger. Even if it was a bad chance, it would probably still be more beneficial (for your genes) to let the child be born than to abort it. I also highly doubt that your choice to choose abortion over adoption has been made mainly because of your view on adopted children and their statistical chance for life. It is, as most things are, driven by "selfishness" (this is not the correct word here, as I do not mean to add a negative connotation. I, however, could not think of the appriopriate word at the moment).

[echo_trail]

I'm not sure where I failed to deliver my opinion to such an extend, that what you got out of it was adoption = death. That's not at all how I believe it to be. I'm just not a fan of either adoption(in my own case) OR abortion (in anybody's case), but I believe it to be an acceptable alternative in some cases. I'd much rather that people didn't reproduce until they have the basic means to support it.

Also, I don't think I ever said anything about my being keen on spreading the genes. I quite like sex, but not for the possibility of flooding the market with little nicks. Even if it is human instinct, it's not a priority of mine at the moment. Or am I getting you wrong?

But you never know, do you?

Annnnd you've hit upon the one thing that makes all this debate meaningless.  To me, this all boils down to whether or not a fetus is human.  If it is not, then the mother's rights are all that matters and abortion is acceptable.  If it is, then it deserves life and happiness just as much as the mother, and killing it is out of the question.  Since we can't confirm either way, all that remains is to postulate about all the "could-bes" and play up the positive aspects of our sides along with the negative aspects of our opposition.

I guess it still makes for some interesting talk though, right?

I agree. I reckon it's pretty obvious that I don't consider a fetus a 'human being', at least not on terms related to this topic. So let's just agree to disagree, yeah?

This has been one of the better threads to hit the lounge in a long, long time. Good to see you've still got some potential, lads.

[Smegma]

I quite like sex, but not for the possibility of flooding the market with little nicks.

You like sex only for that reason, the sensations and emotions you feel during sex are purely for this reason. You've just realized that you cannot or do not want to have a child (now). If this continues to follow, which it could, the people who do not want kids but still like sex will continue to dwindle.

Also, I don't think I ever said anything about my being keen on spreading the genes.

Yet you are, why is it that you don't care if other children aren't raised by you? This shows that you have an investment to you genes, which MUST be expected (mostly). Even if you higher thoughts do not consist of having children, your base urges are mostly for this sole purpose.

[echo_trail]

Yes, sex feels awesome for the sake of increasing reproductivity. I get that. And while I'll some day use it for that purpose, right now I'm happy to wander about, sharing the modern conception of it - Feels good? Go for it, no strings attached.

But let's not get into genetic encoding here. I agree with you last post though.

[Veritas]

I quite like sex, but not for the possibility of flooding the market with little nicks.

You like sex only for that reason, the sensations and emotions you feel during sex are purely for this reason. You've just realized that you cannot or do not want to have a child (now). If this continues to follow, which it could, the people who do not want kids but still like sex will continue to dwindle.

Wait, are you saying people who don't want kids will start to not like sex, or that people like sex will eventually want kids? I feel like I'm missing your point here.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Wait, are you saying people who don't want kids will start to not like sex, or that people like sex will eventually want kids? I feel like I'm missing your point here.

No, the idea is that from an evolutionary perspective, people (or pre-people) who enjoyed sex probably had a lot more of it, and those were the ones that reproduced.  Cut to today, where sex feels good for everyone.  It doesn't work the other way, though, because if you don't enjoy sex, you're not going to do it, so you're not going to reproduce, so that "not liking sex" bit gets cut out of the gene pool.

[Veritas]

Wait, are you saying people who don't want kids will start to not like sex, or that people like sex will eventually want kids? I feel like I'm missing your point here.

No, the idea is that from an evolutionary perspective, people (or pre-people) who enjoyed sex probably had a lot more of it, and those were the ones that reproduced.  Cut to today, where sex feels good for everyone.  It doesn't work the other way, though, because if you don't enjoy sex, you're not going to do it, so you're not going to reproduce, so that "not liking sex" bit gets cut out of the gene pool.

The question revolved around 'the people who do not want kids but still like sex will continue to dwindle,' not that. Not wanting kids is entirely more of a cultural shift than an evolutionary one.

[Smegma]

Wait, are you saying people who don't want kids will start to not like sex, or that people like sex will eventually want kids? I feel like I'm missing your point here.

It wouldn't go to zero, evolutionary includes cultural shifts as well, so I may have spoke to boldly as you are entirely correct on this point.