The one species with a say in the outcome is so enraptured with the preciousness of each and every additional human being that it would allow every other creature to go extinct to make room for ever more people. How is the principle that each and every life is precious .. but only so long as it is human? Sure we're human but we are also animal. To put humans on a pedestal is a holdover from the Christian frame of mind which makes all the rest of the world under our dominion. The truth is that the web of life is mutually dependent. We have dominion over nothing, but we have the means to cut that web down with us in it. We shouldn't do it.

(February 24, 2012 at 2:50 am)Minimalist Wrote: There are 7 billion people fouling this planet.

We've got enough.

Don't worry mate,there will probably be decent war before too long,and hopefully a first class pandemic.

Whadya reckon? A world population of about 100 million be enough? I think humanity would be fine as long the industrial nations all went away.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Mavis; you're a physician? As far as I know,so is every person who performs a legal abortion.(at least in my country) Sorry, argument from authority won't cut it here.

Quote: I believe my position is derived from a sound scientific basis,

Believe what you will ,but belief is not proof.All I read was sophistry posing as science.What I require is peer reviewed empirical evidence.

No. I am not the author of the quote, although I believe in its content.. Rather, that was the main argument which caused me to seriously evaluate my formerly pro-choice leanings and become more firmly pro-life. I became horrified that so many atheists dismiss out of hand the complex, distinctly human process as a mere "clump of cells", when the scientific reality is more intelligent and unique. An unborn, developing fetus meets all of the criteria for human life, without even bringing religion into the discussion, and that is how I reconcile my atheism with supporting pro-life positions.

Just wait mavis, in a few minutes they'll do a flip flop and suddenly claim that "human life" isn't what's important, it is "people" that are important.

(February 24, 2012 at 4:25 am)mavis Wrote: No. I am not the author of the quote, although I believe in its content.. Rather, that was the main argument which caused me to seriously evaluate my formerly pro-choice leanings and become more firmly pro-life. I became horrified that so many atheists dismiss out of hand the complex, distinctly human process as a mere "clump of cells", when the scientific reality is more intelligent and unique. An unborn, developing fetus meets all of the criteria for human life, without even bringing religion into the discussion, and that is how I reconcile my atheism with supporting pro-life positions.

This is easily countered by the fact that the "clump of cells" is dependent upon the host uterus. You cannot stand up for the rights of one and not respect the rights of another, whether you consider it murder or not. Therefore, enforcement of a no abortion law would infringe on the rights of the host uterus' owner while you argue that abortion infringes on the fetus. There is no "win" here. Abortion should be a last resort, but it should also be the choice of the parents or parent, depending on the situation.

---

(February 24, 2012 at 4:29 am)Tiberius Wrote: Just wait mavis, in a few minutes they'll do a flip flop and suddenly claim that "human life" isn't what's important, it is "people" that are important.

Racist.

@whateverist- intersting standpoint. So you feel we should pay people to not have babies? I suppose it's better than paying them to have babies... but has far more potential for abuse, and we as a species have a horrible track record with self control.

As much as I would like that all children could born desired and loved, the reality is just not near this. I reserve the choice for the woman, and altough I agree with the moral objections made by the other side, I find these not compelling enough to overturn my opinion.

I do agree with Shell that it should always be a last resort, a way to do this is providing better sex ed, access to contraception, and support for those already pregant so conditions may help the woman decide to have the child.

Ultimately its the woman's choice, and prohibiting just makes women resort to illegal clinics, endangering their lives, or to the max, a bunch of kids born undesired in terrible conditions.

I'm not a fan of abortion, if I were a woman I would probably(but not certainly) refuse to have one.

Having said that, I do not seek to apply my reasoning or rationale to other people.

Ultimately whilst I'm not pro-abortion, I certainly am pro-choice.

There are so many varying factors, reasons and emotions surrounding any decision to have an abortion that to apply a broad brush to the problem is immature at best and arrogant at worse.

You are entitled to your position but you have no right to impose it on others.

P.s what is wrong with terminating the clinically brain dead?

Fuck off out of my reproductive life and tend to your own affairs. Pro-choice here. Who the fuck do you or anyone think they are ?

The inconsistency I most notice with liberals is that they support abortion but oppose the death penalty. To her credit, Shell B is actually the anomaly on that issue, since she both supports abortion, and (to an extent) supports the death penalty. She's the only person I've come across who actually seems to care about being consistent; I wish there were more of you like that.