Abortion and Global warming

[LastPoet]

Its as if you expected something else from Heywood, Beccs

[The Valkyrie]

Its as if you expected something else from Heywood, Beccs

Yes, I should know better by now.

But I'm an eternal optimist . . .

[Esquilax]

Yes, I should know better by now.

But I'm an eternal optimist . . .

Optimism can lead you toward being hopeful that scientists will perfect human cloning within your lifetime, so you don't need to have kids. If every person on earth believed that, there would be no next generation if it failed, and therefore if you're an optimist you're a hypocrite for caring about the future.

Hey, the probability isn't zero!

[Heywood]

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?

It doesn't matter why I value the baby more. I do. I could value the baby more because it looks like me.

Your garage is on fire. It contains 2 cars, a Bentley and a Kia. You can only save one car. You value the Bentley more so you drive it out.

Was the Kia not as much of a car as the Bentley? Negative....both by their very essence are cars. How much value you place on a thing doesn't determine its essence.

[Cinjin]

This isn't a thread about the morality or immorality of abortion. It is a thread about consistency of positions. If we as individuals have no moral obligation to the unborn then why would we have an obligation to preserve the planet for future generations?

Oh please, that is so stupid. Just because someone is one particular thing doesn't mean they have to be another. I own several firearms and firmly endorse my right to bear arms - does that mean that I now have to "have consistency" and sign up for the NRA and get a concealed carry permit?? Typical christard logic - rigoddamndiculous. A person can support any small part of a much greater idea that he doesn't entirely endorse.

Your jump from pro-choice to planetary concern is a red-herring. You're trying to nail us down to some per-conceived notion that we shouldn't care about the planet because we don't "care about life." Thus allowing you to sit in your own self-anointed moral superiority when in reality, YOU are the only one who has this absurd notion.


Allow me to explain why your stupidity doesn't work on yet another level:

I am Pro-Choice yet it is my hope that a woman will choose Life.
If she doesn't choose Life for whatever reason and decides to abort the fetus - I respect her right to do so.

Yet somehow I'm violating your absurd standard of "consistency" by promoting planetary awareness and pushing a Green agenda??

You're a fucktard.

[Esquilax]

Oh please, that is so stupid. Just because someone is one particular thing doesn't mean they have to be another. I own several firearms and firmly endorse my right to bear arms - does that mean that I now have to "have consistency" and sign up for the NRA and get a concealed carry permit?? Typical christard logic - rigoddamndiculous. A person can support any small part of a much greater idea that he doesn't entirely endorse.

The theist's greatest enemy: nuance.

[Losty]

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?

Will everyone please stop saying future people

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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

Will everyone please stop saying future people

I asked him what a future person was on page 1...

[Cato]

It doesn't matter why I value the baby more. I do. I could value the baby more because it looks like me.

Your garage is on fire. It contains 2 cars, a Bentley and a Kia. You can only save one car. You value the Bentley more so you drive it out.

Was the Kia not as much of a car as the Bentley? Negative....both by their very essence are cars. How much value you place on a thing doesn't determine its essence.

The analogy doesn't work for a couple reasons:

The difference between a Bentley and a Kia invokes eugenics. You should make the automobiles have the same make and model. The following is what then needs to happen to make your analogy appropriate for the discussion.

Your analogy only works if one car is fully operable and the other is simply the blueprints, assembley instructions, and only a portion of the raw materials required.

[paulpablo]

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.

---

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.

It is a consistent position, if you believe abortions will reduce overcrowding and therefore reduce the unhappiness, crime and pollution that comes with overcrowding for future people AND you also believe in cutting carbon emissions to slow down the greenhouse effect ALSO for the happiness of future generations. They both have the same result, happy people in the future.