Abortion

Very cold way of saying it. But i agree with what you said Minsc.

if (Knowledge != Inheritance) {

As for home schooling, I don't see it even 'likely' that a "stupid" parent would want to home school their child. Sure it could happen, but so could an asteroid landing on your house. Maybe 60 years ago when more people lived on farms, this might have had some truth to it. }



Adoption is much worse than abortion?

Some of your misconceptions baffle me.
There are laws and REQUIREMENTS homeschooling, especially in America.
I won't get into each and every law, but there are measures to prevent this very scenario that you are thinking of "might occur".

Dispelling the myths:
-It does not cost a parent a cent to give the kid away for adoption.
-It does not even cost time, the parent can just bring the child to a local fire station. The typical 'want' for killing the baby is a selfish act, in which the parent does not want to spend full 9 months being pregnant.

-Adoption is not available in some locations? Define "some locations"? I have a feeling, if you're going to say "third world countries", well, many of them do not even have abortion clinics. SO neither options are available to them... and so again, fallacy in your logic.

And my argument is against abortion in developed countries. I can't change the world, but I'll try to change my own home.

You can't justify laziness and carelessness when the person is not willing to accept responsibility for their own actions. If you spread your legs, the consequences are apparent.

Perhaps it's my fault for being unclear again, but that's no reason to be snippy. It is merely my firm belief that the abilities and intelligence of parents greatly affect how their children turn out. IE:

-smart, well adjusted parents usually raise smart, well adjusted children
-dumb, irresponsible parents usually raise dumb, irresponsible children

To be sure, I actually do agree that "education is inherited from the parents", only not solely through genetics as you seem to be implying, but mostly through how the parents raise the child.



In the example you provided, the girl:
-seems oblivious and is ignorant about the biological changes a pregnancy causes (she didn't get a clue when she started missing periods, along with other early signs of pregnancy?). If she only noticed when her belly started getting big, she would already be in her second or third trimester.
-shows a remarkable lack of empathy in referring to a potential life as 'it' and 'thing'
-shows a lack of reponsibility in failing to learn about the dangers of unprotected sex
-has a cavalier attitude about killing things
-the above points also indicate a lack of communication between her and her parents, a potential source of all kinds of support

Based on the information provided, I wouldn't want that girl to be a mother, that's my perspective.

Giving up the child for adoption may not cost the parents anything financially, but the cost and responsibilty of raising the child is then passed on to society until and IF the child actually gets adopted. The adoption system is also far from perfect, so there's no guarantee the new paretns will be any better than the old.



Even in developed countries, there is never a guarantee that the child will grow up to lead a good life. You seem to have a lot more faith in society and humanity than I do, but that is not my view and my position remains unchanged.

P.S. laziness and carelessness should NEVER be justified =)

This simply amazes me how people on here think they can 'judge' the lives of others. Let me address some issues with your corresponding statements. And, there's no need to double post.



Who are 'you' to decide, if a child will grow up and lead a good life?
I'm glad it's not your decision to make.
"A good life" is an opinion, should I simply be slain because because of your opinion?




That child, as a citizen, typically grows up and pays more taxes in a life-time, than he or she would ever use. The government will not lose money because a parent gives their child up for adoption.



Again, you do not get to decide who breeds and who doesn't.
And again with the misconception. An uneducated parent does not have uneducated babies. Babies learn their knowledge as they grow up, and if they're given up for adoption, they won't even know their real parents until they've developed into their own person. It amazes me some people cannot grasp that concept yet.



And you're completely out of context. You can't stop stupid people from breeding. Put more thought into what we're arguing about, please. IF you deny a "STUPID" person from abortion, and give them the option for adoption, how would they be raising that child? How would that child's education be influenced by their parents? This response is completely out of context, and does not even merit further discussion.



This is getting out of hand. When will the joke end?
First off, how do you measure abilities and intelligence?
There are plenty of hard-working people who contribute to society with a LOW-IQ, and have limited abilities.

I will stress this only once, because the argument that "the baby might grow up to be bad" is a completely ignorant assumption:

Any human being has the capability of being a productive member of society, other than extreme cases of retardation. You cannot prematurely judge a person before they are born.

Kill a baby because it might grow up to be stupid?
That's like saying, "kill all middle eastern babies, they might grow up to be terrorist."

Kill all black babies, they might steal your bike?
Kill all white babies, they might grow up and be racist?

Your statements: Absurd statements, and deserve absurd responses.

Those statements are true, but so are these:



Really, why are we arguing? The topic of this thread is "In your perspective and values, do you think abortion is wrong?" I have tried to state everything as an opinion and I have read and accepted your statements as opinions as well. If my arguments have been biased towards the negative, then so have yours, but towards the positive. Nothing you have said changes my opinion, and, apparently, nothing I have said changes yours. You accuse me of judging and deciding for others, but I am in fact pro-choice and if your stand is that abortions should never be performed, then aren't you the one who is judging and deciding? I respect your opinion, but it is not mine.

I never stated that I get to choose who lives or dies, or how people live or raise their children, I never said that abortion is a good means of population control, I spoke only in suppositions to support the idea that I'm ok with abortion because, in my personal opinion, one less baby does not mean the end of the world. If that sounds callous and evil to you, then so be it.

Not my intention to "put words into your mouth", but you have failed to specify where adoption is not an option. I just merely ask and perceive and answer if one is not given.


Killing a child is as selfish as giving him a different home?


These are "what ifs", and in the end, I don't think many doctors can predict "the mother will die, with 100% chance.", I'd like to see some statistics on that.



I don't see how these statistics prove that adoption is hurting the economy. It's already stated that these kids typically grow up and pay taxes.

With that said, shouldn't the solution be "improve the adoption system", rather than "kill the babies", have some morality in your life and think which is the best option for those being born into the world, not the best option for you.

Please check your statistics before using them in a debate. I will not argue information that is not relevant to the subject. "Children having children are at risk in poor countries" does not apply to any abortion argument. Abortion is hardly an option for these kids, and neither are hospitals.

So how does this prove that abortion needs to remain legal?
Abortion is not helping prevent these deaths in the first place.
And even if abortion becomes available to these kids,
Their families WOULDN'T be able to afford it.
What they really need, is a hospital to go to.

If you want to continue arguing with me, I expect that you stop using random information, if you can't take the time to find information that applies to the debate, don't find it at all.

In return, you're just makes a long post-not worth reading.

If you want to continue this debate: Tell me how keeping abortion legal is going to improve kids from dying in "sub-Saharan Africa. Niger, Liberia and Mali, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Haiti, Nepal, Nicaragua and Yemen." -- Which are the "kids" at risk, according to your statistics page.

I return to the fray!

[quote=Raoin]Explain to me how not destroying human life isn't beneficial when considering what that human life can do is worse then it being alive... now go on to consider that the child is pretty much part of the mother, if it wasn't then I would agree.[/quote]

You should have the right to live just for being human. It's in our constitution, it's in the declaration of independence. You don't have to earn the right to life by contributing to society. You start with it, and retain until you do something really bad that entitles you to be deprived of it by "due process of law." Thus, people claiming that there is not guarantee a baby will grow up to be good/bad or an asset or detriment to society is all irrelevant. They start out "neutral" and with a right to life. You can't deprive someone of their most basic rights, even if there is a large statistical probability that they will commit a crime or something, they have to actually commit the crime before their right to life can be taken away. Even if we knew for certain that 90% of all babies who are aborted would otherwise grow up to be criminals, I, believing that feti qualify as human, would say that using that statistic would not be justification for the abortions, for the reasons I have stated, as well as for the 10% who would not grow up to be criminals.

Next, as for mothers whose life would be in grave danger(since there is always a small amount of danger in any childbirth) if they gave birth: They represent once again a tiny fraction of the abortions taking place, and if we left an exception for them in an abortion ban, it would be, in my opinion, a huge step in the right direction. But still, in a case where one would have to choose the life of the mother or the life of the baby, who has the authority to choose one innocent life over another.(Note that I use "innocent" more legally in the "has not done something to warrant loss of right to life," than in the religiously "free from sin" context.)

On the education side, Raoin, you have a point that parents' education does have a point. Parents' education does have an effect on environment which influences the likelyhood of the child getting a good education. However, it's probability, not 100% certain, Ben Carson being an example of someone whose mother was illiterate but went to med school and is one of the world's best neurosurgeons. Obviously the exception to the rule, but always a possibility. Also, being dumb and uneducated is not grounds to deprive someone of their right to live(see point 1).

to cooperboy321: You ask why we are arguing? I find that a good debate, carried out with logic, facts, and explanations, and with a minimum of flames is educational and invigorating.

Good luck with the debate WhiteLion, I myself, will probably be bowing out. You can't argue against illogical statement. Like we've both already stated, It's NOT OKAY to kill people, based on victim's pre-assumed intelligence and "they might grow up to be a criminal."

I think most people here realize that, so it's pointless to continue in this direction.

I think most of us would agree with that statement. The problem is we don't agree on when the embryo qualifies as a 'person'. We'll need a new thread for that eh?

The way I see it, the right to life that is granted to one just for being human is and has always been an integral part of our society. While society and its values are constantly changing, the "inalienable" right to life that our society values has never been seriously challenged. While there still might be people that oppose this view, they constitute what is a very small and not so vocal minority. Besides, in asserting this view fully, one would have to accept the idea of putting one's own life at the mercy to society, and, as Sarte would say, this is not so hard to claim when there is no feasable way that it could happen. Additionally, this would imply that the only justification for not performing geonicide on a particular section of the population possessing a certain charactistic that they have no control over is the characteristic itself, and its merit/lack thereof, an idea I find terrifying.



So then the heart of the debate really lies in what should be considere "human" and therefore have a right to life. Our differing viewpoints on this subject, as well as the perceived merits and flaws of these viewpoints have already been discussed fairly extensively, so shall we agree that our viewpoints differ and bring that aspect of the debate to a close? However, if you feel there is more to be discussed in that area, we can continue.



While that might be statistically true(I haven't seen a relevant study), that's a bit of a taboo thing to say. You expose yourself to allegations of racism for a politically incorrect comment, which we have seen to obscure and derail the actual issues in many political debates in modern history.

According to your logic, If I force an abortion operation on a mother, against her will, I should not be charged with murder?

What should I be charged with?
Physical assault on the Mother?

And if I kill a pregnant woman, should I only be charged with one murder?