Seems like rather compatible positions actually, since legal abortion means less people. Less people mean a cleaner environment. Your argument is rather esoteric, much too esoteric to be law.

(May 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Heywood Wrote: If we have no obligation to future persons why is it important to save the earth?

Just because some women choose to have no obligation to bear a future person into the world does not invalidate that people should care about those future persons who will actually be born.

If you are pro-abortion then in principle you must except the possibility that a time will come when no humans will be born. Some would say that since the probability is not zero that every woman who gets pregnant has an abortion....given enough time such situation will come to pass.

It seems to me that abortion "rights" rest on a concept that the wants and needs of those living today supersede the wants and needs of those who will live in the future....or might have lived if they weren't killed in the womb. If this is true...why should I care if I destroy the planet for future generations?

(May 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Today a friend whom I argue politics with lamented that he didn't care if humans destroyed the earth but that I should since I have children.

So that got me wondering. If future generations have a right to a clean and livable earth why don't they have a right to exist? Essentially a conclusion of the pro abortion movement is that future people don't have a right to exist.

Ah, becasue not granting everything an automatic right to eventual existence does not mean enough would not exist anyway?

Damn! I knew you always stretch very hard to achieve the degree of stupid expected of a theist, but your herculeanly rubbery effort really paid off this time.

(May 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Today a friend whom I argue politics with lamented that he didn't care if humans destroyed the earth but that I should since I have children.

So that got me wondering. If future generations have a right to a clean and livable earth why don't they have a right to exist?

No one is saying they don't have a right to exist. But they don't have the right to exist at the expense of someone else.

(May 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Essentially a conclusion of the pro abortion movement is that future people don't have a right to exist.

Wow, so much wrong with that. We are pro choice, not pro-abortion. I think it would be fantastic if abortion wasn't a thing. But if it comes down to a choice between the potential of a fertilized egg becoming a person and the mothers body rights, i'm going to choice body rights every time.

(May 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: The right of existence only comes into being after one is born. Well if they don't have a right to exist then they certainly don't have a right to a clean and livable earth.

The funny thing with pro-life theists like you, is that you actually give special rights to foetuses. You actually give them more rights than an actual person.
If my kidneys were failing and the only way I could survive was to kidnap you, tie you up, and hook myself up to you to use your kidneys. Would that be OK? No, it wouldn't, assuming you don't want me to.
But when a foetus is relying solely on the body of its mother to survive (in the exact same way that I would survive from your body) its fine to totally disregard here choice and say 'you're having that baby whether you like it or not'. Can't you see? You're giving foetuses more rights than an actual person.

(May 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: How does someone who is pro abortion justify fighting against global warming? Do not the rights and needs of the people today supersede the rights and need of future people?

This sentence is just ridiculous. You are talking about pro-choicers as though we don't want the human race to survive as a species.

(May 20, 2014 at 1:08 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you are pro-abortion then in principle you must except the possibility

I do not have to accept any such thing. You think I must, when the opposite is in fact true.

It is unrealistic to assume that a time will come to pass that every woman on the planet will abort every bundle of cells rather than bear any children.

How can anyone be "pro-life" and then don't give a shit about the environment nor leaving the planet in working order for the generations to come?

(May 20, 2014 at 1:08 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you are pro-abortion then in principle you must except the possibility that a time will come when no humans will be born. Some would say that since the probability is not zero that every woman who gets pregnant has an abortion....given enough time such situation will come to pass.

It seems to me that abortion "rights" rest on a concept that the wants and needs of those living today supersede the wants and needs of those who will live in the future....or might have lived if they weren't killed in the womb. If this is true...why should I care if I destroy the planet for future generations?

This is some of the dumbest shit I've heard in awhile.

Granting women the right to professional medical help for abortions is not the same as saying every pregnancy should be terminated. This is what you are suggesting with your outrages claim that humans will stop reproducing. Incredibly fucking stupid when you look around and realize there are 7 billion of us.

Also, making abortions illegal does not mean there will be no abortions.

Another aspect of the abortion discussion that really pisses me off is the fact that it is only you Christian pro-life fuckwits who consider the decision to have an abortion to be the same as deciding to get your nails done. You have zero compassion for the vast majority of women who are often traumatized by the whole experience.

I wish abject stupidity caused physical pain. That way we would be dealing with a lot less of this type of inanity.

(May 20, 2014 at 1:08 pm)Heywood Wrote: Some would say that since the probability is not zero that every woman who gets pregnant has an abortion....given enough time such situation will come to pass.

Whoever these mysterious 'some' are they obviously have no idea how many women get pregnant because they want to have children.

Quote:If women have a right not to reproduce then in principle every women could choose not to reproduce....putting an end to humanity.

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

You should probably stop visiting your own head. It seems like a scary place.

(May 20, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 12:49 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Future people.

Very good description utilized to add weight to a faulty argument.

Keep those sleights of hand coming, yo!

Abortion is essentially a termination of a future person. If we have no obligation to future persons why is it important to save the earth?

Heywood, I had a vasectomy three years ago. How many "future people" did I kill?