Pro-Life

[Quickbeam]

Just to stir the pot a little (as someone said earlier)... now that birth control has come up -

Since the start of the Human Race on this planet up until the 50's, our population had reached 3 BILLION people on this planet.

In the 40 years from the 50's to the 90's...

We DOUBLED that to 6 BILLION humans.

We are conquering disease and famine - nature's population controls.

Then we start preaching anti-abortion and anti-birth control.

Is this wise?

We have (against the will of GOD?) removed the natural population limiters, and now preach that it is morally wrong to limit the population ourselves. What a horrible double-standard.

When will it stop? When the food runs out? When this planet can no longer provide enough fresh water for everyone?

Step back and look at the big picture.

Fresh water is already becomming a problem. In another 40 years we are all going to be in a lot of trouble if there are 12 BILLION people on this planet - and the trouble will be our own doing.

Death is part of the "big plan", "circle of life", "natures way", or anything else you want to call it. If you limit death, you need to limit birth to prevent overpopulation. Letting the people choose to do so of their own free will is a good start. If you don't, then you'll eventually have to mandate limits. If you don't do that, then we all eventually starve or die of thirst.

Pass me the Soylent Green and some cheese, would you?

 

[Graham]

Originally posted by darkgear.com:
Heh, you linked the two and didn't even know it. Most wedding vows come from this idea of freely, totally, faithfully, and open to children.

This has been the basic ideas that involve, I guess I should say, Christian marriage for millenniums. Only in the last century has marriage become so ambiguous.

Randy

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Most? Wedding vows can be just about anything. At its base level, the marriage concept is simply a pairing off for the purpose of rearing children. But society changes, as do concepts. Sex drive is an inherent part of the drive to reproduce, which is a survival trait.
But population growth causes changes in society, and the drive for every individual to reproduce becomes less essential for survival of the race than it was. But the sex drive is still there. It isn't going away.
Do we want unbridled population growth? I don't think so. Then what? Better education, open communications help, but the sex drive which is part of the human makeup isn't going to just go away.(and I think we'd be foolish to want it to..)

So people think, "We still have this urge for sex, but we don't need to have kids. What are we going to do.."

A quick summary:

1. People are going to keep having sex. That shouldn't, and likely won't, stop.

2. Without some kind of birth control, the consequences for the race and this planet are not good. Either that, or another war or two. I know which I prefer..

3. Accidents will happen.

Graham

Btw - very well put, Doug.

 

[x-ray]

OK I'm not saying anyone's views are right or wrong here (we all have our own opinions), Just wanted to add a few thoughts/questions to the discussion.

These questions are mainly aimed at the people opposed to abortion

1. If the pregnancy posed a definite/severe health risk (lets assume birth of child would cause death of the mother) would an abortion be acceptable ?

2. If the woman was a rape victim, thus her right to choose if to get pregnant or not didn't exist, would an abortion be acceptable ? (I know this is an old argument, but thought I'd throw it out anyway)

Oh and for anyone who's interested in my personal opinion, I believe an abortion would be acceptable in the above cases.

As for non medical/crime related abortion, well I've given it a lot of thought and at this time I'm still undecided, although I am swaying towards the pro-life point of view.

 

[Moat]

Well, I sure don't expect I'm raising the bar after such great, thought provoking posts so far, but on this topic I can't help but say something. And please, no one take ANY offense to what I'm about to say -

But I must say, IMHO - the religious/pro-life/emotional/moral reasons against abortion are absolutely insignificant compared to the death and destruction towards humanity and nature that results from bringing another human being into this terribly over-populated world, especially into the consumption-hungry United States. Absolutely insignificant! If I really sit and think of the many troubles in the world today, 99% or so (aside from the occasional errant volcano , hurricane, etc...), I find inevitably are the result of there just being way too many of us here in this limited space, under the pressure of limited resources. War, pollution, starvation, foodsource species endangerment/extinction, economy, taxes, welfare, unemployment, disease, global warming (Darell, I,m still waiting on those cheap EV's!), terrorism, landfills, nuclear proliferation, etc... Bringing another lifelong consumer/human into the mix at this point in time is, in my opinion, as "sinful" against God/Nature as anything I can possibly imagine. Non-aborted or otherwise. If we really want to hold a true reverence for God, then no more kids (for a while, anyway!).

There is a good reason our founding fathers created the separation of church and state - it's the same as saying the separation of emotion and common sense. Emotion has NO place in the ruling of governments.

As far as the destruction of the fertilized human egg as being a sin to be judged apon: frankly - I kill more living, fully developed human cells whenever I scratch my ***. Sorry, but true. Not to mention the thousands of fully developed living, breathing, thinking, family-raising creatures we've all killed driving our cars around. Or the 200,000-some Iraqi's killed a few years back to protect our privelege to drive said car.

Again, I hope no one's offended - I'm just a nobody out here who's not too good at speaking (typing?) my mind. This is a topic near and dear to me, though.

And Peter - I may not see eye to eye (eye to foot, for that matter

) on this topic, but I just love my Arc's - don't worry - I'll be buying more!!

Bob

 

[darkgear.com]

Population issues deserve its own thread.

I, for one, am glad to be a part of the population and I am glad that no one, especially my mother, denied me that opportunity.

THANKS MOM!

Best regards,
Randy

 

[x-ray]

This may be a bit off-topic, but it just occurred to me that a discussion of this type on any other board would have degenerated into a nasty flame war by now.

Kudos to CPF and its members

 

[Moat]

Sorry - the majority of my reply does seem a bit off topic.

Bob

 

[darkgear.com]

Agreed.

I would have never posted on this subject on any other board. I admire the civility and openess to ideas that the members here always show. Thank you CPF.

Best regards,
Randy

 

[Graham]

Bob, I disagree - the subject of birth control has been brought into this, and I believe that population issues are inherently tied to that.

Graham

 

[MicroE]

Randy---How many children do you have?

I have two boys. My third son passed away when he was two.

Anybody who wants to help sick and unwanted babies AFTER birth can send donations (as I do) to:

Terrance Cardinal Cook Hospital
1249 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10029

 

[James S]

While my heart is with you Peter, my vote will continue to go against you. I was responsible enough in my younger years that I never had to help someone make this decision, and now we want kids! While the thought is horrible to me I can imagine several equally horrible circumstances where the option could be not only morally defensible, but even the "right" thing to do.

Federal law is not very good about taking individual circumstances into account. It tends to make blanket statements and generalizations that are not good for anyone. I don't believe (and we are talking about belief here) that it is universally and always wrong and therefore something that can be served with a law.

I am sorry that some people make the wrong choice, some of them repeatedly. I do my part to donate to education and help for people to make the right decisions. But I wont coerce them through legislation. Enlightenment is an individual achievement, you can't force it.

 

[WaltH]

I can't believe I'm adding my .02 but here goes, short and sweet.

I am pro choice. But my choice is life.

I think there are situations that warrant terminating a pregnancy. One example would be if it were the baby or my wife. If I'm making that decision, hard as it would be, I would choose my wife.

I have 4 daughters and my wife is pregnant again. It was a surprise, my vasectomy was scheduled for the next week (which I went ahead and did). I am 39, and my wife 38. There are risks with our "advanced" ages. Abortion was never an option that entered our minds. My wife is like me...pro choice, but she chooses life.

Let me just add I've never seen this topic discussed with such civility before. And usually a topic I stay away from...but we're all friends here.

 

[doubleganger]

I always think its funny that people want the goverment to push their agenda on other people but to leave THEM alone. My favorite example is the conservatives want the government to leave them and their guns alone but to enforce abortion restrictions on everybody else. The liberals want to enforce gun restrictions on everybody else but leave THEM alone to make their own abortion choices. I'm a libertarian and want the goverment to just stay out of both.

 

[DieselDave]

We had better not tell friends or co-workers about this thread or we will end up with a bunch of new members whose total agenda is this topic, religion or politics. These topics are a nice change of pace but with just a few of the wrong members the Cafe could turn into a left and right wing platform and CPF would then be the Crazy People's Forum. I too am shocked at the complete civility of the post but it is only because of the type member CPF attracts.

Don't get me wrong, I love to jump in for religion and politics but nothing embodies both subjects as well as abortion.

 

[doubleganger]

I also don't understand how people use the Bible to justify their oppositon to abortion. Can anyone tell me where in the Bible the point where human life begins is addressed? The only thing I've read is that God breathed life into Adam, which implies that human life begins with the first breath. Sure a fertilized egg is 'alive' so is a sperm and so is an unfertilized egg. Could someone please tell me on what basis they have decided that the soul arrives at conception? If it's just your opinion, I have a big problem with having to live MY life based on YOUR opinions.

 

[Max]

I am very hesitant to fully engage into this discussion, but I did want to make a comment on two things.

Originally posted by Tomas:
...I am not going to state an opinion in the incessant "Pro-Life / Pro-Choice" arguements, but simply an opinion on forcing others to do what YOU want them to do because you may not approve of what THEY might want to do.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It is unfair to dismiss a policy because it involves "forcing" people to do what they might not want to do. We do that all the time. We force the racist landlord to rent to African Americans. We force restaurant owners (at least here in New York City) to ban smoking in their establishments. We force that employee with the nude pinup to take it down in the name of preventing a "hostile work environment." We coerce every resident of this country to pay taxes. We fine you if you park next to a fire hydrant, and if you don't comply, we tow your car.

We do all of this "forcing" in the name of so-called "greater goods" -- some of which you and I may agree with, and some not. Just don't pretend that it's only right-wing pro-lifers who are into "forcing."

Okay, now a comment for Peter.

Originally posted by Gransee:
I believe that the destruction of a fertilized egg at any stage in its life from conception to before death by old age is murder and subject to judgment by God.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The rhetoric "abortion is murder" is often used by those that are against abortion. Do you really believe that? Because if you do, you have to accept some responsibility for the implications of that viewpoint.

We all remember when the D.C. area was being terrorized by two snipers on a shooting spree. Had you been there and spotted a sniper taking aim about to murder another innocent, I think you would agree that if you had a gun and could use it to stop the sniper from shooting, you would be morally justified in doing so.

So, is an abortion doctor about to perform an abortion procedure morally equivalent to the sniper? If they are both murder, then how is it different? If a person shoots an abortion doctor, by what logic do you condemn him but not the person who shoots to stop an attacker? You might condemn a person who shoots an abortion doctor, but it would be the shooter who has the more consistent position.

 

[darkgear.com]

How about this. Completely devoid of religion or morality and speaking completely from a legal point of view. Human rights end when you no longer have brain waves. More specifically you lose your property rights at that time. So I it would be fair to use the same measure at the beginning of life also. If your rights end when you no longer have brain waves your rights should begin when you do have them. How about that?

I find it incredible in our legal system that you can go to jail for harming some birds' egg EVEN if you did not know what kind of egg it was at the time you did harm to it... But when it comes to harming whatever you may call it that will become a human...

In a case against a guy that took a California Condor egg(I think thats what kind it was??) A lawyer asked a forest ranger how could he know what would come out of the egg. He answered "it was a Condor egg what else could it be but a baby Condor". Indeed, what else could it be that resides in that mothers' womb but a human baby...and the person that does the harm should be accountable.

Randy

MicroE, I have 5. The middle one was called home in the womb. No father should have to outlive his children. My heartfelt regards go out to you.

 

[lessing]

Ok, I agree with waltH.. I am pro choice, but I choose life. On the religious stand point, bear in mind I gave up my catholicism, it is not for humans to enforce god's will. I think we all have seen enough religious wars, and know of the inquisition, and don't forget hitler fought for a vague god's will. God used to have an angel tidy up for him and then he became the merciful god of the later books with an idea that all will be judged in the end and it is for god alone to judge. We are supposed to be accepting of others and thier right and wrong choices. Forcing your ideals, weather right or wrong, is immoral unethical, anti democratic, and anti christian. Forcing people to make decisions based on your own ideas is paramount to the arrogance of the people who built the tower of babel. God punished them by scattering them around the earth and removing thier ability to comunicate.

And for the non-religious side. If you do not want a baby do not have one. I feel that everyone should have the right to choose, but do not show efveryone how ignorant you are and have a baby you di not plan on. I was a suprise, and mny others are as well. But people should pony up ahead of time. If you are responsible enough to have sex, you dang well better be responsible enough to handle the outcome. I do not think abortion should be thrown around as a oops I f'd up, let me clear this up method. People are using birth control to keep from having any responsibility.

Brian

 

[Anarchocap]

Originally posted by Max:
It is unfair to dismiss a policy because it involves "forcing" people to do what they might not want to do. We do that all the time. ... We coerce every resident of this country to pay taxes...

We do all of this "forcing" in the name of so-called "greater goods" -- some of which you and I may agree with, and some not. Just don't pretend that it's only right-wing pro-lifers who are into "forcing."

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I can honestly say I am against all coercion of adults and older, responsible children. Most of the problems I see happening now-a-days are caused because people have been shown that coercion is acceptable. If the government can do it, then so can I. Who the hell am I or anybody else to tell you what is for your "greater good"? How can people even pretend to know that?! Its a farce. Its an excuse to bully people around via mob violence.

Democracy is all about force. If you believe in Democracy, you happen to run counter to what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country. 50.01% of the voting public telling the rest of the population what to do doesn't preserve Liberty! It will be the downfall of the USA. We are right now tumbling towards Fascism, if not knocking on its door.

Its only when we embrace unanimous consent will we even be able to reasonably touch a firecracker like abortion.

You can't expect people to act with responsibility when the rest of the country gets to chip in their two cents. Add in our government telling us that it is the expert (sic) in so many matters of our daily lives in order to preserve its growth and taxing (theft) capabilities, and it will bail us out if we screw it up, what motive does the population have learn from its mistakes or to not make them to begin with? Its certainly no wonder to me why we have such a schitzo world.

 

[x-ray]

Originally posted by Gun Nut:

I can honestly say I am against all coercion of adults and older, responsible children. Most of the problems I see happening now-a-days are caused because people have been shown that coercion is acceptable. If the government can do it, then so can I.

Democracy is all about force. If you believe in Democracy, you happen to run counter to what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country. 50.01% of the voting public telling the rest of the population what to do doesn't preserver Liberty! It will be the downfall of the USA. We are right now tumbling towards Fascism, if not knocking on its door.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But without democracy wouldn't you be left with anarchy, everyone doing whatever they please with no repercussions ?