Why are you Pro-Choice.

But why is it wrong? Don't just throw claims out, try to build a logical case for your arguments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also the case with babies. Should they be killable?

We could manage resources properly now only by allowing mass starvation. We are using future resources by not allowing renewable resources to replenish themselves. The world is overpopulated if it cannot maintain its level in the long run.

Why couldn’t abortion be part of the way the resources are managed?

No problem. We already kill people in wars for whatever reason. Or we kill them in prison as punishment. We kill the innocent in prison too, because perfect justice is deemed too costly. The public kills for fun and profit.

The slippery slope is a valid argument for abortion. If you take away a choice, other choices are at more risk of being taken away. You use intuition and history for this, not logic. The religious nuts desperately want to control you. If you give them an inch, they will be emboldened and grow in power. It is possible to outlaw abortion without restricting other freedoms, but the risk cannot be taken lightly. All countries are on the path to democracy or dictatorship. There is a reason why the slippery slope is forefront in the mind of every judge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then I guess sentencing a woman to rear her child against her will is also an unspeakable violation of her rights?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Originally posted by zanket
Also the case with babies. Should they be killable?

It is possible for babies to survive once they have been born without existing in a parasitic relationship with their mother.

We could manage resources properly now only by allowing mass starvation. We are using future resources by not allowing renewable resources to replenish themselves. The world is overpopulated if it cannot maintain its level in the long run.

This just isn't true. The there is no reason for people to starve in our modern world. Virtually all cases of mass starvation in the past several decades were caused either by massive government incompetence or deliberately for some political/military reason.

No problem. We already kill people in wars for whatever reason.

If you don't have a problem with killing a child because he/she is living in an abusive environment, then I suppose this argument would work for you. The vast majority of people would disagree with you.

 

Asguard. I'd rather see all the children in orphanages adopted before people have their own child, but I know that would never happen as most people would rather have their own children. One of the problems I see is the restrictions on adoption which leaves children or foster care rather than with a loving parent or parents. One of the major problems in the US which is slowly being changes was that states received their funding on how many children they had in their care instead of how many children it placed into homes.

What amazes me is that to drive a car you need a license, yet to have a baby you don't need to sit any courses or such, pity. Maybe people should be made to get a license before they are allowed to raise children.

 

Seems an awful fine line between that and a baby that can’t survive on its own.

The reasons are in our near future. The human population is skyrocketing and that spells d-o-o-m.

Doesn’t mean we won’t starve in the next century. The world holds twice as many people now as it did during the Great Famine in China just 40 years ago. At that rate we’ll have 50 trillion (yes, trillion) people by the year 2500. Do you think technology will save us? Abortion might help.

Then the vast majority would be hypocrites. The examples I gave were of society killing for similarly dubious reasons.

 

without a choice, i'm a sheep, no thankyou.