Abortion and Global warming

[Heywood]

That's funny, you yourself just agreed that a zygote has less "right to exist" than a baby or by extension an adult.

Negative Rampant.

The situation was I could only save one. Both have a right to exist, but both don't get to continue existence because of circumstances beyond my control. I am going to save the being which I value more. How I value a being has nothing to do with that beings right to exist in the first place. You are conflating two separate and distinct things.

[Esquilax]

Why are we even humoring these ridiculous hypothetical scenarios?

If every woman on the planet- even the pro-forcing women to remain pregnant (see, I can unfairly alter language too, Mr. Pro-abortion ) for some reason- chooses to have abortions we'd die out, therefore it's hypocritical to be pro-choice and pro-environment, eh?

Well, if the entire next two generations of people were exclusively women or exclusively men then we'd die out too. Therefore, being a man or a woman is inconsistent with a pro-environment stance. Hey, the possibility of it happening isn't zero!

See, Heywood? I can formulate stupid, nigh-impossible fantasies to reach for distant, idiotic positions too.

[Heywood]

Why are we even humoring these ridiculous hypothetical scenarios?

If every woman on the planet- even the pro-forcing women to remain pregnant (see, I can unfairly alter language too, Mr. Pro-abortion ) for some reason- chooses to have abortions we'd die out, therefore it's hypocritical to be pro-choice and pro-environment, eh?

Well, if the entire next two generations of people were exclusively women or exclusively men then we'd die out too. Therefore, being a man or a woman is inconsistent with a pro-environment stance. Hey, the possibility of it happening isn't zero!

See, Heywood? I can formulate stupid, nigh-impossible fantasies to reach for distant, idiotic positions too.

They are thought experiments designed to make a point.

Being a man or being a woman is a matter of happenstance. Terminating a pregnancy is a decision....a matter of mind. Your attempt a thought experiment fails miserably in making your point.

[Esquilax]

They are thought experiments designed to make a point.

Being a man or being a woman is a matter of happenstance. Terminating a pregnancy is a decision....a matter of mind. Your attempt a thought experiment fails miserably in making your point.

So let me retract it a mite: if the entire next generation and so on were exclusively whatever, then the choice to have a child of either gender could result in the end of humanity, and therefore the choice to have children is incompatible with a pro-environment stance.

Happy now?

Oh, and I notice no comment on the "your hypotheticals are ridiculous and near impossible," point. You just seemed to want me to make an even less possible version of my own scenario so it could keep up with yours.

[Bad Wolf]

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.

Let me ask you a hypothetical. Suppose two mothers and two nursing babies are on a plane. The plane crashes. One mother's baby is killed and one baby's mother is killed. It will be one month before the surviving woman and baby are rescued. There is plenty of food for the woman but it is none of it is suitable for the baby.

During that month does the surviving woman have a moral obligation to nurse the surviving baby.....or can she refuse on the grounds of her body her choice?

I'm looking to see if you are consistent with your position that a woman's right to self determination of her body supersedes another's right to exist.

This doesn't equate very well. There is no factor forcing her to keep the baby unlike in a pregnancy, for obvious reasons.
However, yes, it is still her choice. It may be immoral to let the baby die but its her choice. I don't exactly see why she wouldn't feed the baby in this scenario since she would already be producing milk and there is plenty of food for her so the baby wouldn't be a drain on her....
If the baby was replaced by an injured adult in this scenario, one that needed a blood transfusion from her, the choice to either give blood or let them die would be easier. But I am consistent, if the woman doesn't want to give blood to the injured passenger, she doesn't have to. If the mother doesn't want to feed the baby, she doesn't have to.

[Confused Ape]

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?

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

World Population

The world population has continuously grown since the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death in 1350, when it was near 370 million.[6] The fastest growth rates – global population increases above 1.8% per year – occurred briefly during the 1950s, and for longer during the 1960s and 1970s. The global growth rate peaked at 2.2% in 1963, and has declined to below 1.1% as of 2012.[7] Total annual births were highest in the late 1980s at about 138 million,[8] and are now expected to remain essentially constant at their 2011 level of 134 million, while deaths number 56 million per year, and are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040.[9]

The UN projects steadily declining population growth in the near future, with the global population expected to become between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050.[10][11] UN Population Division estimates for the year 2150 range between 3.2 and 24.8 billion;[12] one of many independent mathematical models supports the lower estimate.[13] Some analysts have questioned the sustainability of further world population growth, highlighting the growing pressures on the environment, global food supplies, and energy resources.[14][15][16]

What effects are climate change likely to have when resources start getting scarce because of droughts, crop failure and rising sea levels etc. ?

Climate change may lead India to war: UN report

Key messages from IPCC report

* Coming years will see more extreme weather events (floods, cyclones, cloud bursts, unseasonal excessive rains and drought etc) in most parts of the globe

* Maldives, China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka will be among the most affected countries in Asia

* Severe stress on fresh water resources in South Asia and China (Himalayan river basins) may become a reason for armed conflict in the region by middle of the 21st century

* Climate change may be a determining factor in national security policies

* Coastal flooding will not only kill people and cause destruction, it will also affect tourism in India (like in Goa and Kerala)

* Decline in foodgrain production (wheat in India/Pakistan and wheat and maize in China)

* Big coastal cites like Mumbai and Kolkata will be affected by sea-level rise in 21st century

* Some fish and other marine animals will face extinction by 2050, affecting fishing community

* In many regions, changing precipitation or melting snow and ice are altering hydrological systems, affecting water resources in terms of quantity and quality

* Glaciers (including Himalayan) continue to shrink almost worldwide due to climate change, affecting run-off and water resources downstream

* Climate change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating health problems that already exist.

A lot of those problems will affect everywhere else on the planet and Climate Change Could Increase Armed Conflicts By 50 Percent Worldwide

So lets say - Every potential human has the right to live so he/she can fight for food, water and other resources or die in the attempt. Not all potential humans will live long enough to fight, of course. Millions will die in infancy due to starvation, disease or being in the middle of an armed conflict.

[pocaracas]

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?

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".

[max-greece]

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?

How about giving future generations a right to be borne to parents that want them?

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

On the other hand. What is the major cause of the destruction of the earth's climate?

Could it be......people?

Surely actions that curtail the expansion of the global population have a more positive effect on the future of the earth and its ability to support us going forwards than actions that work against this.

In other words lets imagine your Christian paradise on earth.

No more abortions.
No more contraception.
No more homosexuality or masturbation.
All sex is heterosexual and has a reasonable chance of producing off-spring.

Couple all of the above with our improvements in pre and post natal care and we have a population explosion.

If the average person yields 3 viable off-spring and we take a generation at 25 years:

Current population - 7 billion.
Population in 2039 - 10.5 billion.
Population in 2064 - 15.75 billi0on.

Won't take long for all the resources to run out now will it?

[paulpablo]

You're wrong abortion doesn't mean future people don't have the right to exist.

If future people have a right to exist, why then does a woman's unborn offspring not have a right to exist?

They do have a right to exist. The woman also has a right to not allow her unborn offspring to exist. In many situations this prevents over population, overpopulation in most situations results in more crime, more unhappiness, famine, disease.
Also if you look at three of the most populated countries in the world, China, India and the United states of America all three are also the most polluting countries in the world which relates to global warming. You're argument is pretty much backwards since what you are against (abortion) is slightly lowering world populations, and what you're suggesting is better (people never having abortions) would cause even more overcrowding, crime, pollution and unhappiness than the world already has.
There's a difference between believing that a woman has a right to choose abortion and believing all unborn babies should die and that no one should have babies.

[Tonus]

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.