I doubt that... it could put their life at stake, it would just simply be better for the female to not worry about intercourse till she's ready (AKA Marriage).
Last edited by Fates-Blade-900,
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
How do you feel about abortion?
- Thread starter DRAGONBALLVINTAGE
- Start date
- Views 56,842
- Replies 913
- Likes 2
Or not.
All that I am saying is that people should scrutinize, otherwise you go back to the middle ages, you can't build up knowledge if you don't put into doubt that which you can't prove.
Oh geez, you're one of those gullible religious nuts. Why do pro lifers always need to drag their imaginary friends I to debates like this? It's up to the MOTHER to decide if she wants to abort because it's her body, end of story.
I said nothing. There is circle and circle of argument at endless. Ok, forget it. I know two things already: Abortion is wrong and God does exists. As I said who design the house ? Cars ? We did so we are called intelligence design. Who design Earth, animals, trees, and etc ? Intelligence design out there did it. Not evolution or anything changed itself. Nonsense. So one day.. As bible said one day there will be reveal and people who dont believe will regret according to the Bible. Abortion is absolutely 5,000% very very wrong. Human corrupt, indeed. Thanks for the discussion. It ends here. Thanks. Cheers.
It's imaginary to you but not to others.
I don't agree with you on this. I feel that a father should have certain rights as well and have part in deciding if a couple should have an abortion due to it being his child as well.
D
Deleted User
Guest
So preached the terrorists that put a plane into the WTC, expecting to be welcome into the other world.
People that follow without questioning and scrutinizing are just fanatics, no matter the religion. And I don't mean that people can't have faith, not at all, faith is alright, but being fanatic leads to being lead up like a sheep by others. That is not good for a society based on western ideals of freedom.
You ought to try one out. It's kind of taboo, kind of a rush. Makes you feel powerful.
Especially if you don't bleed out using a coat hanger and a bucket of ice.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,004
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- In the Murderbox!
- Website
- www.twitch.tv
- XP
- 16,135
- Country
Omg Darwin would be shitting his britches.
Who cares? ...bunch of virtue signaling autismos. 90% of you won't be in any kind of reality to make a mature decision about this. As a young child who went to Sunday school I also felt this way.
Grow up. go back to bashing TX.
Also. Babies are gay. Dont you care about the survival of the species? In many places the population is already not sustainable.
Is this well considered?
We cannot afford to be led around by a bunch of mewlings. Congratulations you are susceptible to D-level propaganda.
And one more thing- no one asks a BB whether they'd consent to being murdered.
But neither has anyone received permission to give birth. How do you reconcile this? you can't.
I wish the person who started this thread had been aborted. Bunch of [emoji3579][emoji533]'s
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Who cares? ...bunch of virtue signaling autismos. 90% of you won't be in any kind of reality to make a mature decision about this. As a young child who went to Sunday school I also felt this way.
Grow up. go back to bashing TX.
Also. Babies are gay. Dont you care about the survival of the species? In many places the population is already not sustainable.
Is this well considered?
We cannot afford to be led around by a bunch of mewlings. Congratulations you are susceptible to D-level propaganda.
And one more thing- no one asks a BB whether they'd consent to being murdered.
But neither has anyone received permission to give birth. How do you reconcile this? you can't.
I wish the person who started this thread had been aborted. Bunch of [emoji3579][emoji533]'s
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
We're vastly overpopulated as it is, so I say abortions for everybody for the next 10 years until we get this population shit under control a bit.
Thats not how you solve that. 
And you'd have to build a heck load more hospitals in the following states:
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
Sorted by UN projected growth rates from 2015-2020.
With aid money from other states. Wouldnt go over too well...
The issue usually is provisioning for old age - in failed states, which is one of the main drivers of getting kids in those regions.
The big perspective issue is, that population growth has decoupled from economic growth. So 30 years back, population growth was coupled with economic growth. So you got more children, if the economy was better. Those have decoupled in the last centuries. With an inverse trend. So poorer countries grow more.
And you'd have to build a heck load more hospitals in the following states:
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
Sorted by UN projected growth rates from 2015-2020.
With aid money from other states. Wouldnt go over too well...
The issue usually is provisioning for old age - in failed states, which is one of the main drivers of getting kids in those regions.
The big perspective issue is, that population growth has decoupled from economic growth. So 30 years back, population growth was coupled with economic growth. So you got more children, if the economy was better. Those have decoupled in the last centuries. With an inverse trend. So poorer countries grow more.
Last edited by notimp,
Let's try a thought experiment.
Actually think about how much of your hard earned dollar you are willing to pay to enact your view point.
I.e. if your view is that abortion should be banned. Just how much are you contributing to this kid.
And should they turn to crime how much are you willing to pay to incarcerate them.
And if you would think of death penalty how much would to sacrifice for this.
No matter what you think. It maybe thath women have an abortions manlybe
How would you pay for it?
.
And for the people who don't care...why?
Actually think about how much of your hard earned dollar you are willing to pay to enact your view point.
I.e. if your view is that abortion should be banned. Just how much are you contributing to this kid.
And should they turn to crime how much are you willing to pay to incarcerate them.
And if you would think of death penalty how much would to sacrifice for this.
No matter what you think. It maybe thath women have an abortions manlybe
How would you pay for it?
.
And for the people who don't care...why?
Last edited by PrettyFly,
I am not sure why so many people are so money driven, or stingy perhaps.
I don't think money in this case would make that much of an impact on my opinion.
Actually if we decided to tax ourselves more to make the place I live in better and make the society I live in better, I would happily pay the added tax. If for some reason putting some extra money was some kind of solution I welcome it, but it is not.
My conclusion is not made based on money really. I mean, sure you have to consider the economics of a given suggestion, but that is not exactly the weak point of this one suggestion.
I don't think money in this case would make that much of an impact on my opinion.
Actually if we decided to tax ourselves more to make the place I live in better and make the society I live in better, I would happily pay the added tax. If for some reason putting some extra money was some kind of solution I welcome it, but it is not.
My conclusion is not made based on money really. I mean, sure you have to consider the economics of a given suggestion, but that is not exactly the weak point of this one suggestion.
There are 2 million deer in the US and they say we need to hunt them because they are overpopulated. But there are 300,000,000 humans. People seem to think humanity is special. Sanctity of life is Santa Claus for adults. Believe in it all you want, but don't try to inject your beliefs into other peoples lives. The truth is there are way too many humans on the planet. No one is coming to save us. There has been life here for 2 billion years, and we're about to end it all because we think we're better than what we came from.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that as a man, I shouldn't be asked this question.
I'll never have to grow a baby inside me, and if I want, I can abandon my family (more men than women do that) without a lot of consequences.
So this debate about abortion must be done, yes, but only between women.
Women only, as a whole, should debate, decide and legislate about this issue (and other women only issues).
I'll never have to grow a baby inside me, and if I want, I can abandon my family (more men than women do that) without a lot of consequences.
So this debate about abortion must be done, yes, but only between women.
Women only, as a whole, should debate, decide and legislate about this issue (and other women only issues).
Thats only if you want to tackle the problem "morally" then you might ask yourself "can I really 'feel' like the women in that situation", and then might want to withdraw from inserting you opinion into a discussion.
But then to tackle the problem morally is about the worst thing you an do. One simple truth is, that there is no "debate". Even if everyone thinks, that they have to inject their opinion.
Because even if you look at this pragmatically - you end up at the point where you can objectively say abortion needs to be allowed (in some form), to reduce objective pain and suffering.
Its also a good example for why law isn't supposed to be moral, or emotional. In my country for example, we currently have a populist government, that has just hiked up sentences for all kinds of crimes, that people find morally appaling. As soon as they did, you have legal pundits coming forth to tell them, that what they are doing is wrong, because there will be no further effect of deterrence, and the only thing they are doing is to increase suffering, to satisfy the sadistic 'needs' of the general public.
There is a similar argument to be made in this case. You look at the 'bad' situations unwanted pregnancies can produce. People having psychological breakdowns over not wanting to birth a child for differing reasons. People dissociating from their child, because they simply are unable give them the emotional care that society is nudging them to give. (Leads to neglect.) People willing to resort to serious self harm to end the situation and you decide - regardless of what civil society thinks, that you have to give people recourse in those cases - or you are actively inducing really bad situations.
Then you also look at the wellbeing of the child, and come up with a compromise. A compromise is, when neither side is absolutely correct, and we still have to somehow deal with that.
You will arrive at this conclusion logically. On humanistic grounds. (Which is also a kind of moral structure, but at least not a popular one..)
Another lesson to be learned from this is that "mass believes" are a horrible judge of anything really.
Thats why even with democracy we've ended up with "representative democracy". Meaning - the people supposed to judge issues are the ones who understand the respective issues. And you are not supposed to have any direct influence on it. You can basically only vote for "change" or "four more years". (At least in the american system.. )
Thats the theory. You can call that elitist. But then others can call catering to your needs populistic. (Which is always much easier to satisfy, because you give them a bouncy ball, and they are entertained for hours, until the next story comes along. Thats part of human nature.)
But then you have instances like late term abortions in the case of your child having a gene defect, and being born disabled. Which almost cant be explained in objective terms. (Inalienable rights, equal in front of the law...) So either you accept, that the potential 'suffering' this event is causing in the parents lives is so much higher, than in any other case - or you are inclined to see it as a corrective measure, where you acknowledge, that society at some level inherently doesnt want to care for people that are out of the norm. So this decision almost looks "more political" compared to the question "if abortions should be allowed on some level".
The answer to the second one is always yes. If you are not a religious hardliner. And those are the people that have to be "right" morally, because otherwise it destroys their sense of self. Those are the people you always smile and nod at, and then never do what they actually ask. Preferably. For the good of the many.
But then to tackle the problem morally is about the worst thing you an do. One simple truth is, that there is no "debate". Even if everyone thinks, that they have to inject their opinion.
Because even if you look at this pragmatically - you end up at the point where you can objectively say abortion needs to be allowed (in some form), to reduce objective pain and suffering.
Its also a good example for why law isn't supposed to be moral, or emotional. In my country for example, we currently have a populist government, that has just hiked up sentences for all kinds of crimes, that people find morally appaling. As soon as they did, you have legal pundits coming forth to tell them, that what they are doing is wrong, because there will be no further effect of deterrence, and the only thing they are doing is to increase suffering, to satisfy the sadistic 'needs' of the general public.
There is a similar argument to be made in this case. You look at the 'bad' situations unwanted pregnancies can produce. People having psychological breakdowns over not wanting to birth a child for differing reasons. People dissociating from their child, because they simply are unable give them the emotional care that society is nudging them to give. (Leads to neglect.) People willing to resort to serious self harm to end the situation and you decide - regardless of what civil society thinks, that you have to give people recourse in those cases - or you are actively inducing really bad situations.
Then you also look at the wellbeing of the child, and come up with a compromise. A compromise is, when neither side is absolutely correct, and we still have to somehow deal with that.
You will arrive at this conclusion logically. On humanistic grounds. (Which is also a kind of moral structure, but at least not a popular one..
)Another lesson to be learned from this is that "mass believes" are a horrible judge of anything really.
Thats why even with democracy we've ended up with "representative democracy". Meaning - the people supposed to judge issues are the ones who understand the respective issues. And you are not supposed to have any direct influence on it. You can basically only vote for "change" or "four more years". (At least in the american system..
)Thats the theory. You can call that elitist. But then others can call catering to your needs populistic. (Which is always much easier to satisfy, because you give them a bouncy ball, and they are entertained for hours, until the next story comes along. Thats part of human nature.)
But then you have instances like late term abortions in the case of your child having a gene defect, and being born disabled. Which almost cant be explained in objective terms. (Inalienable rights, equal in front of the law...) So either you accept, that the potential 'suffering' this event is causing in the parents lives is so much higher, than in any other case - or you are inclined to see it as a corrective measure, where you acknowledge, that society at some level inherently doesnt want to care for people that are out of the norm. So this decision almost looks "more political" compared to the question "if abortions should be allowed on some level".
The answer to the second one is always yes. If you are not a religious hardliner. And those are the people that have to be "right" morally, because otherwise it destroys their sense of self. Those are the people you always smile and nod at, and then never do what they actually ask. Preferably. For the good of the many.
Last edited by notimp,
Similar threads
-
- Locked
-
Xdqwerty
what are you looking at?
-
-
-
-
-
@
AncientBoi:
And a part of my immediate family passed also. Sending my good suit to the cleaners for the funeral Saturday -
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@SylverReZ, may I ask you something? What are your favorite animes? (Aside of serial code lain)
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
Mines are all the dragon ball animes. Im also enjoying Fullmetal alchemist and my hero academia+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
