In this discussion I would like to talk about abortion. It is always something I have felt very strong about and would argue to the ends of the earth on. I have always been Pro-Life, always. Ever since I became an Atheist, this topic keeps popping up in my head. Since it is something I have not wanted to confront, I have been pushing it to the back burner. Now that I have given it some thought I would like to tell you where I used to stand and where I stand now. When I was a Christian my thought process was "Abortion is Never the right choice unless the mother and child will both die." So even if the child were to survive and the mother dies, abortion is still not the right choice. Some might even consider that murder, I guess. To answer this question I'm sure someone will ask, Yes I would have and still would give up my life for my child. Well, now I'm sort of seeing things a bit different. If a female gets raped and gets pregnant from it, abortion is ok, (sad all the way around - for everyone).  If a woman chooses to abort a baby due to the risk to the mothers life, Ok. If the baby will have a very very very difficult life and in turn make the parents have an equally difficult life, ok. To me abortion is a horrible thing, if someone wants to have an abortion just because oops I got preggo. That is horrible. If you don't want kids do everything in your power to NOT get pregnant. Simple as that. Life is a beautiful an precious thing, and yes I do believe it is special.  Any and All comments are welcome :)

Views: 5017

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As for the oceans, we'll never out-eat them. Sharks and tuna get replaced by jellyfish, I don't think the oceans will ever empty.

Why, then, do I find myself eating less tasty fish like tilapia and basa when I'd far prefer to be eating cod, which used to be the staple fish? Cod is still there, but in lesser quantities and far more expensive than it once was.

I'm not sure I want to force myself to try liking the leftover fish once the ones I truly prefer are too scarce to rely on.

Unseen, yes, I find myself making the same food choices (and they're short-lived, which means no mercury, an advantage in itself), but that's the human perspective.I have given up on sushi, one of my lifetime favourite food preparations.

Once our pallets are accustomed to crappier oceanic food, generations having not known the better stuff won't know the difference. This is not good for the ecosystem certainly, but the acid soup is deadlier.

Rightly said Unseen, and too rarely heard. I am in no way Malthusian, I am ecosystemic. Malthus was concerned with resource availability and distribution. To me that is irrelevant, Homo sapiens carrying capacity will ALWAYS be increased by technological advancements. My concern is for quality of life (air-water-space) for humans AND survival of all wild populations of flora and fauna.

Also from an economic perspective, supply and demand, the more humans there are... the more disposable we are, that is not attractive to me.

Abortion is actually one of the main culprits behind the decline in the population of Russia, where there are significantly more abortions than births. China has also used abortions, mostly voluntary but also forced, to control its population for a generation. It is also a widespread practice in India.

If I were to guesstimate a yearly reduction in births of 50m world wide due to abortions, I don't think I'd be completely off the mark. Compare that to around 140m births per year, and it definitely has an impact.

There is no such thing as "a" tipping point, tipping points are found in each system. Indeed, a great many of the important tipping points are already in our past: clean water, clean air, wildlife equilibrium. So everyone who talks about an "eventual" tipping point are really late on the science.

Low breeding rates in the first world are irrelevant, for you must multiply it by 10 or 20 to be able to compare it to the ecological footprint of any newborn on the third world.

Longer lives and prosperity are directly correlated to ecological footprint per per person, I find no joy in that.

Abortion is a wonderful, though second only urgency, to control pregnancies, the first is vasectomy, the third is tubal ligation... in order of degree of invasiveness.


The text link wasn't convincing, but the TED talk was absolutely brilliant, enlightening, entertaining and totally credible.  I loved the bit with the boxes, too.  I'm convinced, and thank you for sharing it.

Thanks, I spent the morning watching a documentary about Hans Rosling. His personal story is compelling, but the documentary was just ok. 

I agree, last year when I watched the TED talk I was so infuriated by his lack of scientific thoroughness that I wrote him a two-page correspondence. He did have the decency to respond to me.

The largest mistake made by a great many people discussing population is comparing modern procreation trends to historical ones... but completely missing the point of the definition of historical. Typically, people talk about reduced breeding effort in terms of the 1950s. The surrounding years saw the largest ever breeding effort by any women anywhere on the planet. When doing statistical analyses, we must not compare the present to the very worst period in history, that is an extremely poor strategy. We must use a reasonable baseline. The challenge is therefore to evaluate the breeding success of females through the centuries, hopefully going back at least a couple of thousand years.

Can you imagine a society where the idea of pro-life is a thinly-veiled scheme to keep enlistment in the christian army at high levels so that they can dominate everyone and everything else and win the ultimate battle of good and evil with all the other heathens?

I can. Wait, that's not my imagination, that's our reality.


I do agree that human beings are a scourge on the planet. How could any sane person think otherwise? I was thinking about the idea to put a moratorium on procreation for fifty years, and I think very few people would still be able to have kids when it was finished.
I wonder how much of my opinions or feelings about what is right and wrong are just products of my upbringing, experiences, etc. if I am not brainwashed just as much as any religious person in many ways. And I'm not a biologist, I'm in healthcare, so that biases me towards sick people in some ways, because that's who I'm meant to care for as my job. But I am sick about the harm done to the planet, and the terrible destruction people, including myself, have done.
Do you think disease will wipe us out, or control the population in a way that is more manageable or are we truly destined for the cannibalistic horror show that kris describes? Thanks T a a for the cute pics.
Here's two of my kids, both adopted, even though they look related.

cute pets :)
Funny about the healthcare thing, I have a this funny opinion that people in healthcare are the most marriageable people around, since they are the most empathetic, the most compassionate, and the most driven to save lives at all costs. Of course I don't really associate with those qualities, and I am happily bachelor... :)

A vast majority of people on this site have only let go of supernatural in the last few years, some here STILL have not let go of all supernatural. Everything that is modern human is learned. It is the reason our society is so dysfunctional. The very people, such as yourself, who's life purpose is to ensure the earth has the most humans possible, through eschewing death as often and long as possible, are the very source of our dysfunctional humans... sorry, I don't mean this personally, but to all people in healthcare. In a regular biologically driven species, unfit individuals would not survive to procreate. We have skewed this, ensuring that all individuals get their "chance" to breed. You could compare it to salmon farming. Salmon farming is the death of the wild population of salmon, because of all the defective babies that grow to adulthood, spreading disease throughout the wild populations, breeding defective genetic makeups into the general population. This is what pharmaceutical companies are banking on, the more defective genes get to procreate, the more clients the pharmaceutical industry has. It's a wonderful business plan, more sick people, more income, and so on and so on.

It is the ultimate demonstration of the Law of Unintended consequences... good intentions creating bad results. "Good" is often not "good". It's why I dislike concepts of good and bad, they're entirely subjective, to the person who stands to benefit from it.

Strega, that was a great post, and you brought up a really good point. This idea that contraception is murder, and that people are opposed to someone using it has often boggled my mind. I cannot wrap my head around it, but some of the stuff that someone was saying about Islam made me think maybe it's a way to make soldiers for "gods army". I've heard that expression used, and thought they meant it as a metaphor, but maybe the goal is that if you have the
majority of people who think the same, you can wipe out the rest, is this maybe a secret goal of the Christian church? One of my friends was complaining about the sex Ed in schools, and how they're teaching them about masturbation and how awful she thought that was. Then she went on to say that only abstinence prevents pregnancy and disease, she seemed to completely overlook the fact that masturbators cannot infect themselves... Well I guess they could if they did ass to ewwwww..... Icky poo. Sex is gross. Why do religions have such a hard time around human sexuality? Why did they come up with this idea that god hates sex unless its for procreation? And now I have to come up with a new set of rules or good and evil... Well, I still don't want to hurt anyone, or myself, and I'd like to make a difference in the world, and have a bit of fun...maybe I don't have to change too much! Thanks everyone for making me think! And sorry for being icky, I'm only human ;)


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service