gcthomas
New member
DO you think the rainforest doesn't offer those women a ready supply of abortifactant herbs?
"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
DO you think the rainforest doesn't offer those women a ready supply of abortifactant herbs?
WizardofOz
New member
Does it? :idunno:
In that case, no woman needs an abortion provider. They only need abortifactant herbs.
woo - wrt "grow your own" marijuana laws, would you be opposed to people supplying abortifacient herb seeds on the internet?
Do you think the woman in this picture has any choice about unprotected sex, or has access to a pharmacist for contraceptives, even if she did put in a few more hours in at work?
Did you get the impression I was speaking of the piddly percent of individuals in some foreign country? Nice dodge though.
Though to humor you, I will answer. Find another hobby that doesn't include having unprotected sex.
WizardofOz
New member
I never even realized such a thing existed but I did find this: Abortifacient:Herbs That Can Cause Miscarriage
Although this is written more as a warning.
I would not criminalize or prohibit these herbs as they have other uses, just as I would not prohibit hangers for the same reason.
yeah, i agree
practically speaking, impossible to enforce
practically speaking, impossible to enforce
gcthomas
New member
Sorry, I thought that we were discussing human rights, and these folks are human, are they not?
Moral arguments often progress best when discussing edge cases, so I'm sorry if you wanted to be more parochial.
No more human than their innocent, unborn baby.
This isn't about parochial, but rather about the life of innocent, unborn babies. Because a pregnancy is difficult doesn't make the unborn child less innocent, human and deserving of life.
Contraception is a human right? Contraception is the result of the twisted liberal idea that families need to be small, something nobody ever thought until about the 20th century. Its also the result of the acceptance of fornication. If sex were between a husband and wife as it should be, and children were viewed by them as blessings as they should be, the issue would be moot.
gcthomas
New member
Might a poor family that can barely feed itself not see another child as a good thing but another mouth to feed in time of famine that makes everyone starve?
And I assumed that the woman in my example was married, but not in control of her reproductive rights. Your arguments revolve around rich western lifestyles. Not everyone lives like you.
And I assumed that the woman in my example was married, but not in control of her reproductive rights. Your arguments revolve around rich western lifestyles. Not everyone lives like you.
Perhaps, in which case they can give the child to another family to adopt. But murdering the child is not the answer.
Babies for adoption are so scarce that people adopt them legally in other countries. There is a definite need out there.
gcthomas
New member
This is an uncontacted tribe in a famine, so adoption is not possible.
Maybe they don't want your murderous ways. If they are uncontacted then why would you want your first contact to be to teach them to kill babies. What the heck is wrong with you man.
Somehow mankind managed to get by for thousands and thousands of years without abortion clinics. And you would contaminate an uncontacted tribe with such evil?
Maybe you should be more clear in what you say, because it appears you are promoting abortion and imposing contraception, which is at odds with being a conservative.
gcthomas
New member
The discussion was about the morality of specific actions carried out in specific circumstances whereby the benefits of an abortion to the survival chances of other members of the family were much greater than for a much wealthier middle class American household.
I'd love to get involved in this discussion, but I have no intention of reading 54 pages of it.
I scrolled through the last few pages, and I like the example of the jungle famine family. However, maybe we should find an example that is a bit more close to us.
Consider the following:
We have a 19 year old crack addict living with her mother, who has a lower class income, in a bad neighborhood. Our hypothetical crack addict's father had left them when she was 6 years old, never to return; which drove her mother to severe alcoholism, debilitating her from keeping a steady job. The severity mother's depression and resentment only grew over the years, driving her deeper and deeper into the abyss of alcoholism.
The constant abuse from her mother made our crack addict (let's call her Jane) avoid being home at all cost, whereby sentencing her to socialization with street gangs and various other hoodlums. It was not long before Jane tried her first smoke from a cigarette, followed closely by her first beer. In an ever accelerating downward spiral of misdemeanor and wild nights out Jane ultimately lands on the shores of crack pipes.
Now, at the age of, let's say, 19, one night of heavy drinking and unprotected sex, among many such nights, Jane gets pregnant, and does not know by whom.
Unfortunately, in Jane's country abortion is illegal. Even more unfortunately, Jane decides to 'clean up her act' just enough so the social services don't take her baby to a foster home.
Now, what kind of a life can Jane offer to her baby? Living with a single alcoholic mother, she surely has no place to raise her family, no college fund and, most probably, no health insurance or dental plan. Her kid will grow up in a constant state of misery, and will probably in his/her adolescence develop similar habits to his/her mother, unavoidably leading to similar results, whereby Jane's granddaughter/grandson will suffer a similar destiny as his/her mother/father and his/her grandmother, thereby perpetuating the vicious circle.
If, however, and that's a very BIG IF, Jane's child somehow manages to pull itself out of the mud it has been born in, and, through education or in another manner, builds a decent life for itself, it will forever wear the psychological scars of it's destroyed childhood.
Now comes the conundrum:
Is it a greater ill to condemn a living being to a life of constant misery, or to deprave it of the gift of life before it even becomes aware of the fact that it possesses a potential for receiving such a gift.
To put it in other terms: Is the gift of life worthy of the curse of existence in a world like this?
Abortion is not the problem. The problem are the circumstances that drive one to abortion. Before we ask ourselves is if it should be legal to abort, we should ask ourselves should ask ourselves what right do we have to bring a living being into a world such as this one.
Abortion disrespects the baby's right to live, but giving birth, in many cases, does the same thing. If aborting was not the baby's choice, whose choice was it that the baby should live?
Was it the baby's?
God's perhaps?
Or the mothers?
Was it God's choice that Jane disregards the fundamental tenants of safe sex and get's impregnated by a man she can no longer remember the next morning?
I scrolled through the last few pages, and I like the example of the jungle famine family. However, maybe we should find an example that is a bit more close to us.
Consider the following:
We have a 19 year old crack addict living with her mother, who has a lower class income, in a bad neighborhood. Our hypothetical crack addict's father had left them when she was 6 years old, never to return; which drove her mother to severe alcoholism, debilitating her from keeping a steady job. The severity mother's depression and resentment only grew over the years, driving her deeper and deeper into the abyss of alcoholism.
The constant abuse from her mother made our crack addict (let's call her Jane) avoid being home at all cost, whereby sentencing her to socialization with street gangs and various other hoodlums. It was not long before Jane tried her first smoke from a cigarette, followed closely by her first beer. In an ever accelerating downward spiral of misdemeanor and wild nights out Jane ultimately lands on the shores of crack pipes.
Now, at the age of, let's say, 19, one night of heavy drinking and unprotected sex, among many such nights, Jane gets pregnant, and does not know by whom.
Unfortunately, in Jane's country abortion is illegal. Even more unfortunately, Jane decides to 'clean up her act' just enough so the social services don't take her baby to a foster home.
Now, what kind of a life can Jane offer to her baby? Living with a single alcoholic mother, she surely has no place to raise her family, no college fund and, most probably, no health insurance or dental plan. Her kid will grow up in a constant state of misery, and will probably in his/her adolescence develop similar habits to his/her mother, unavoidably leading to similar results, whereby Jane's granddaughter/grandson will suffer a similar destiny as his/her mother/father and his/her grandmother, thereby perpetuating the vicious circle.
If, however, and that's a very BIG IF, Jane's child somehow manages to pull itself out of the mud it has been born in, and, through education or in another manner, builds a decent life for itself, it will forever wear the psychological scars of it's destroyed childhood.
Now comes the conundrum:
Is it a greater ill to condemn a living being to a life of constant misery, or to deprave it of the gift of life before it even becomes aware of the fact that it possesses a potential for receiving such a gift.
To put it in other terms: Is the gift of life worthy of the curse of existence in a world like this?
Abortion is not the problem. The problem are the circumstances that drive one to abortion. Before we ask ourselves is if it should be legal to abort, we should ask ourselves should ask ourselves what right do we have to bring a living being into a world such as this one.
Abortion disrespects the baby's right to live, but giving birth, in many cases, does the same thing. If aborting was not the baby's choice, whose choice was it that the baby should live?
Was it the baby's?
God's perhaps?
Or the mothers?
Was it God's choice that Jane disregards the fundamental tenants of safe sex and get's impregnated by a man she can no longer remember the next morning?
WeakDo you think the woman in this picture has any choice about unprotected sex, or has access to a pharmacist for contraceptives, even if she did put in a few more hours in at work?
First off, this picture alone tells us none of the details you seem to think are pertinent to the issue at hand, and you supplied none of them in this initial post.
And the woman certainly does have access to keeping her legs closed if she cannot afford to bring another child into this world.
But since you seem to insist that she would be justified in killing a pre-born child in such a case do you also insist that she would be justified in killing an already born child in order to save other children?
Exactly.
Thank you.
No problem.
We may not agree on everything but this simple truth is logical and plain for all who are not blind to see.