Abortion

[Marisa]

Um, what? You are not making sense here. Sorry if I misunderstand you.

China was killing too many children, and did an about face on a policy.

Read Columbus' post. He explained it very well.

 

[Marisa]

Biblically speaking, God will judge the world for the pollution and abuse of it, which is causing (in part, I think) climate change.

Biblically speaking, God will judge those who take innocent life.

I think both are great challenges.

Yawn

 

[Marisa]

A lack of females would instigate some other changes. Here, it would affect us outrageously, at least until SCOTUS defined marriage as a guy and a gal, two of same or multiple guys with a gal. Scary! Or China could have a few wars and kill off some men. Think about it!

SCOTUS didn't define marriage. It defined where the US government can discriminate and where it can't.

More emotional blackmail heavily laced with histrionics. Yawn.

 

[columbus]

Or China could have a few wars and kill off some men. Think about it!

Oh I have and it scares me.
This is one of the reasons I oppose polygamy as a concept. If you have a population where 10% of the men have an average of 2.5 women, that means 20+% of the men won't have a wife and kids. Those men are much more inclined to be soldiers.
If there are 100,000,000 Chinese in this gender selected generation the normal distribution would be 50/50. But instead, there are 48M women and 48M married men and 4M potential soldiers. Given the total population of around a 1.5 billion, those numbers seem conservative, although I don't know for sure.

Whatever the Chinese government might be, stupid is not one. Nor shortsighted or unaware. I think that they set out to grow an army and have done so. I find that really scary.
Tom

 

[Paranoid Android]

There are a lot of religious arguments (and general political ones) against abortion. But I think that the argument, generally speaking, demonstrates the scientific illiteracy of the everyman.

So you're against abortion for whatever reason, but consider this argument from Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"Most abortions are spontaneous and happen naturally within the human body. Most women who have such an abortion never know it because it happens within the first month. It is very, very common. So in fact the biggest abortionist, if god is responsible for what goes on in your body, is god."

Now when he says 'very common' what he means is 50-70%. That's 50-70% of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion that you 1) can't control and 2) are never aware of.

So how is the anti-abortionist stance tenable given this dataset?

The differemce is God chooses that. Who am I to question my Designer ? God can do what God WANTS to do. It is for Humans to put u or endure what God wants to do.
However, my Designer has said that you shall not kill, even if someone threatens your life. In that case, God has chosen you to die. But we don't have he right to harm each other.

 

[leibowde84]

Though this question is not specifically addressed to me, dear Marisa, I will say that I now understand the basic argument of the pro-choice side of the debate, which is simply “regardless of how you personally feel, you should allow women to make their own choices in their reproductive health”. If that's the argument being put out by that side of the debate, then as a libertarian, I really can't argue against that.

That is the argument, no matter what straw men the pro-lifers invent.

 

[columbus]

However, my Designer has said that you shall not kill, even if someone threatens your life.

How do you know God hasn't chosen you to get rid of the person doing the threatening?
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

How do you know God hasn't chosen you to get rid of the person doing the threatening?
Tom

That would be killing, no?

 

[columbus]

That would be killing, no?

Yes, it would. Killing is not something I am categorically opposed to by any means.
Tom

 

[Cephus]

That would be killing, no?

And the Bible doesn't prohibit killing, it prohibits murder, which is killing not permitted by law. Why don't more Christians know this?

 

[leibowde84]

And the Bible doesn't prohibit killing, it prohibits murder, which is killing not permitted by law. Why don't more Christians know this?

I was fully aware of this, and I didn't make any claim about what the Bible says. That was pretty assumptive of you.

My response was to the following:

Paranoid Android: However, my Designer has said that you shall not kill, even if someone threatens your life.
Columbus: How do you know God hasn't chosen you to get rid of the person doing the threatening?

 

[SomeRandom]

A lack of females would instigate some other changes. Here, it would affect us outrageously, at least until SCOTUS defined marriage as a guy and a gal, two of same or multiple guys with a gal. Scary! Or China could have a few wars and kill off some men. Think about it!

A disproportionate gender population has more pressing issues facing it than having gay people.
Polygamy seems more inclined to have multiple wives. There are polygamous relationships with one female and many males but it seems to less prevalent, so having less females wouldn't be a desirable option for polygamous men. So why did you use it as an issue of a society desiring less females?
China has successfully built a solid manly army. Criticise their overpopulation strategy all you like, their approach at least has some foresight to it.

 

[Marisa]

A disproportionate gender population has more pressing issues facing it than having gay people.
Polygamy seems more inclined to have multiple wives. There are polygamous relationships with one female and many males but it seems to less prevalent, so having less females wouldn't be a desirable option for polygamous men. So why did you use it as an issue of a society desiring less females?
China has successfully built a solid manly army. Criticise their overpopulation strategy all you like, their approach at least has some foresight to it.

You're talking about polyandry (one woman, many husbands) and it's still practiced in remote parts of Nepal, I believe. In that culture, one woman tends to marry all the brothers in a family and each brother has a job in the family: one tends the fields, one tends the animals, one goes off to the town and obtains work, etc.

 

[McBell]

I think abortions are appropriate when helping the life of the mother--so I think you have made the field a bit narrow here. Perhaps we might start with "many abortions (as individual choices) are not the best route(s) to take..."

Not being the best route to take is no reason to ban said route.
Give a good compelling reason, preferably legal.

Please note that I am not likely to accept any appeals to emotion or other logical fallacy.

 

[SomeRandom]

You're talking about polyandry (one woman, many husbands) and it's still practiced in remote parts of Nepal, I believe. In that culture, one woman tends to marry all the brothers in a family and each brother has a job in the family: one tends the fields, one tends the animals, one goes off to the town and obtains work, etc.

Ahh I assumed there were different terms.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is the argument, no matter what straw men the pro-lifers invent.

Lovely, except we are using "reproductive health" when "healthcare" implies "extension of life" and "wellness of life" rather than terminating a life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not being the best route to take is no reason to ban said route.
Give a good compelling reason, preferably legal.

Please note that I am not likely to accept any appeals to emotion or other logical fallacy.

I understand, which is why I asked a while back what it would take to change your stance. Did anyone answer that? And no one asked me the same question, either, I think...

 

[viole]

I understand, which is why I asked a while back what it would take to change your stance. Did anyone answer that? And no one asked me the same question, either, I think...

I did. A stroke could change my stance.

And true, nobody asked you the same. So, what could change your stance?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Lovely, except we are using "reproductive health" when "healthcare" implies "extension of life" and "wellness of life" rather than terminating a life.

Nope. We aren't using "reproductive health". We are using "reproductive rights". So, your straw man is irrelevant. Abortion rights are not solely dependent on the mother's health. While it is a concern, the "rights" we are discussing are based on every woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Reproductive health is defined as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being in all matters relating to the reproductive system, at all stages of life. So, while a woman's right to choose is included in this broad category, we are actually discussing "reproductive rights" and a woman's right to disallow the use of her body to any other living thing.

 

[leibowde84]

I understand, which is why I asked a while back what it would take to change your stance. Did anyone answer that? And no one asked me the same question, either, I think...

I answered it a while back. I said, "a valid legal argument".