Abortion and Global warming

[Bad Wolf]

Everyone has a right to life, but not at the expense of someone else.

[Esquilax]

Does an abortion prevent previous children?
Does an abortion prevent later children?

Yeah, this is what makes Heywood's premise so derpy and airheaded, to me; there's no requirement to reproduce. Those that want to have kids obviously aren't going to have abortions unless they really need to, those that don't want to have kids obviously won't bar unforeseen mishaps, and more importantly, this issue is more nuanced than the simplistic binary Heywood is attempting to enforce.

Surveys show that many abortions happen not because the woman doesn't want kids period, but that she doesn't at that specific time; either she's finished having kids and doesn't want another, or will have them later, but not now. I wish I could find this, and maybe one of you guys or gals has better Google-fu than me, but I think there's actually a study out there that shows having an abortion doesn't really affect the number of kids a woman is intending to have, in most cases. Like, if you ask prior to an abortion how many children she'd like to have, and then ask down the line how many she did have/is still intending to have, the number seems to stay the same. So Heywood's strange notion that having an abortion at one time precludes ever having children at all is just... bizarre.

The probability of his ridiculous hypothetical just gets lower and lower.

[paulpablo]

They do have a right to exist.

Do they? Who grants this right, and what do they do to people who violate the right of the unborn to exist? A right granted to a person implies an obligation upon another. If we are granting rights to a person before he or she becomes a person, then we are agreeing that mothers are obliged to carry to term in order to respect that right.

There's more than one type of right, you're talking about an entitlement right I'm talking about a liberty right. Unborn babies have a right to exist, it's a freedom they deserve not an obligation to anyone else. Even people who support a choice in abortion don't usually say "Unborn babies have no right to exist."
I believe people should have the freedom to walk down the street without being punched in the face but I can think of circumstances where I would punch people in the face while they're walking in the street.

[Heywood]

Maybe I shouldn't....but I do.

That didn't answer why you would value the baby over the zygote. My point is that you shouldn't, however. If you see both of them as 'future people' you should have an impossible choice and be unable to choose. Not that that was an option.

Just because 2 beings both have a right to exist doesn't mean both have the same hold the same value.

Further, if you took your position to its natural conclusion then a parent is under no obligation to use their body to pick up a sick child and take it to the doctor....which is silly.

---

There's the problem of an increasing world population along with climate change.

World Population

This isn't a thread about the morality, necessity, or virtues of abortion. This is a thread about consistency. If future generations have a right to a clean and livable world then future generations have rights. This implies that future people have rights....including the right to exist. The right of a future person to exist contradicts a woman's right to an abortion.

---

If you are pro-life, you should care very much about the environment and leaving the planet in working order for generations to come. The answer as to why some people are not is simple. People are not always consistent with their positions.

Should, yes... But, typically, those who attempt to prevent abortions from happening (so-called pro-life), are the same people who then are climate change deniers, or who don't care about recycling and the likes... These people tend to fall under the umbrella of the label "conservative right".

Other people having inconsistent positions is not a good excuse for you to have one.

[Bad Wolf]

Just because 2 beings both have a right to exist doesn't mean both have the same hold the same value.

And you still haven't answered why you value the baby over the zygote. Am I going to get an answer?

Further, if you took your position to its natural conclusion then a parent is under no obligation to use their body to pick up a sick child and take it to the doctor....which is silly.

No! That is completely wrong. I'm talking about a persons right to their body and their bodily functions. A foetus relies entirely on the mother and there is no way around it. Trying to equate taking a child to the hospital and carrying a child around with you for 9 months against your will, is ridiculous. That is definitely not the 'natural conclusion'.

[Esquilax]

This isn't a thread about the morality, necessity, or virtues of abortion. This is a thread about consistency. If future generations have a right to a clean and livable world then future generations have rights. This implies that future people have rights....including the right to exist. The right of a future person to exist contradicts a woman's right to an abortion.

If you want to go there, you'll have to demonstrate, and not merely assert, that a fetus is a "future person." Given that miscarriages, mishaps and abortions do happen, the absolute best you could hope to consistently justify merely by your assertion is that a fetus can either be a "future person" or a dead fetus, which is exactly what the pro-choice side believe too.

But that doesn't entail the conclusion you've reached, unless you do some more work to demonstrate that a fetus is always a person.

[pocaracas]

Should, yes... But, typically, those who attempt to prevent abortions from happening (so-called pro-life), are the same people who then are climate change deniers, or who don't care about recycling and the likes... These people tend to fall under the umbrella of the label "conservative right".

Other people having inconsistent positions is not a good excuse for you to have one.

indeed... and it doesn't give them any moral high ground from which to look down on my position, be it what it may.

[Ryantology]

Talk about inconsistent positions. Christians pop out the granddaddy of all inconsistent positions: killing unborn children is morally wrong, unless the right being (God) does it, and then it is to be praised as a good act. Note that you can replace 'unborn children' with pretty much any category of human being you want, and neither the numbers of dead, nor the manner of death, has any effect on the equation.

Good ol' "objective" morality.

[Esquilax]

And what's really the inconsistent position here? Is it the pro-choice position, which treats the autonomy and quality of life of extant, sentient life as sacrosanct and thus (if you think about it for a second) has a vested interest in maintaining that quality of life for the future generations that statistics show will still exist, abortions or no? Or the religiously driven anti-choice side, that treats our entire existence on planet Earth as nothing more than a temporary pit stop on the way to the permanent happy land?

Which of us really has no reason to care about what happens to our planet? People in imaginary houses shouldn't throw stones at those of us in actual houses, Heywood.

[The Valkyrie]

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. 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.

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?

No one is pro abortion. People are pro-choice.

The rest of the argument is idiotic.