I haven’t been posting much lately, but the rampant idiocy was just too big for me to ignore.
It’s not just abortion. Deterioration of moral values (most effectively taught by religion) in a society has historically resulted in the increased rate of teenage pregnancy, divorce, incest, bestiality, suicide, etc…
Yeah, Religion totally helps: just look at islamic countries, for example. Where girls get raped and it’s totally their fault (and they get stoned to death). Or at medieval Europe, where the church was a huge, hedonistic and capitalistic enterprise.
Even if you make everyone a religious fanatic, it won’t help at all. You’re just substituting problems with other problems. Which might be even worse.
Here’s a nice protip: it always looks like everything is going in the shitter. But it’s just the world going forward, and you remaining behind.
What’s to stop people from advocating the legalized marrying between their pet or sibling after the previous issues stated were widely accepted behaviors? This is why legalizing weed, gay marriage, and encouraging abortion are such hotly debated issues in America right now. English scholar Thomas Malthus proposed moral restraint as a solution towards easing poverty among the lower class because it would effectively eliminate their tendencies to have so many kids.
Haha, the classic slippery slope fallacy. Here, read this: http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/slope.htm
some Malthus bullshit
Stop trying to apply social ideas of 200 years ago today. It won’t work. It makes you look silly.
did you know late term abortions (6 months/later) are legal, even when the baby is viable?
also there’s always that argument of “what if you were the aborted baby”
Abortions near the point of viability are performed only in extreme medical emergencies when the woman’s life is threatened. A tiny fraction of these cases result in live-born infants, who are given all care necessary to sustain their lives.
It’s a trick of the brain that makes us think this question has any meaning. We don’t remember a time when we didn’t exist, and for the slower-witted amongst us, this means that not existing isn’t quite real. But even anti-choicers who buy into this line have to know there was a period before their lives began. They may not feel it’s true, but they know it intellectually. In fact, the question buys into the premise that we accept that our own “not-existing” was possible, because the question assumes that before you were born, your mother had the choice not to have you. The question therefore folds in on itself in a vacuum of self-contradiction.
To ask it is to ignore the fact that any of us exist by pure chance, and that many things could have changed it so we weren’t here. What if your parents never met at all? I probably wouldn’t be here for something as simple as my grandparents moving to a different neighborhood in El Paso than the one they lived in. That’s how my mother met my father, after all, but if she’d lived on the west side instead of the east side, they probably wouldn’t have met at all. It is, after all, a big city. Does that make settling in one neighborhood and not the other immoral, and if so, how do you know which is the moral neighborhood? What if my grandmother’s first husband hadn’t died in the war? I wouldn’t be here; that doesn’t mean that we should think wars are some great thing because they set in motion series of events that lead to certain births. Truth is they also shut down another range of possibilities; think of all the children that man could have had and didn’t.