RE: The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians
October 2, 2015 at 2:15 am
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2015 at 2:44 am by robvalue.)
I'm impressed that, for the most part, this difficult issue has had a sensible discussion.
I'd like to point out that nobody (sane) thinks abortion is great and that there are no issues involved. People who are pro choice recognise that there are two options, neither of which are "good" options. Either you force a woman to give birth to a child she does not want, or you allow the pregnancy to be terminated. I doubt anyone would argue that either of these are "good" scenarios. It's about which is least bad. Personally I think allowing women control of their own bodies and making this decision themselves is the least bad option. [EDIT: I've worded this really badly but hopefully I've cleared up what I actually meant in the following posts.]
Regardless of when the thing arbitrarily starts receiving "rights", the world is already grossly overpopulated, including thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of unwanted or orphaned children. I don't understand why people think it's important to put yet another one on the pile, while the world clearly can't cope with all the ones it already has.
I just don't agree randomly having children is always in the children's best interest. Since they haven't actually even started life yet, why not wait until there's a situation where one is wanted? If people really thought every child born was unambiguously a good thing, they would be having them constantly, and as many as possible. It's really not that simple. Also, every new person in a crowded population impacts every other person already there, to some degree.
I'd like to point out that nobody (sane) thinks abortion is great and that there are no issues involved. People who are pro choice recognise that there are two options, neither of which are "good" options. Either you force a woman to give birth to a child she does not want, or you allow the pregnancy to be terminated. I doubt anyone would argue that either of these are "good" scenarios. It's about which is least bad. Personally I think allowing women control of their own bodies and making this decision themselves is the least bad option. [EDIT: I've worded this really badly but hopefully I've cleared up what I actually meant in the following posts.]
Regardless of when the thing arbitrarily starts receiving "rights", the world is already grossly overpopulated, including thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of unwanted or orphaned children. I don't understand why people think it's important to put yet another one on the pile, while the world clearly can't cope with all the ones it already has.
I just don't agree randomly having children is always in the children's best interest. Since they haven't actually even started life yet, why not wait until there's a situation where one is wanted? If people really thought every child born was unambiguously a good thing, they would be having them constantly, and as many as possible. It's really not that simple. Also, every new person in a crowded population impacts every other person already there, to some degree.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum