Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
If we're discussing respect for the human being, what respect would a maldeformed individual have, or a child raised into poverty or a broken home? I must have surely mentioned it to one of your previous masks but in 2000 we reached 6 billion people on the planet. Before 1900 the world never sustained more than 2 billion people. At present, there are 7.3 billion - 1.3 billion people in just 15 years.
In 2100, the UN has calculated the spread: if we begin curtailing our out of control population growth, we can bring the population back down to 6 billion. Unchecked for the sake of 'human dignity and the sanctity of life' we could have as many as 16 billion; the more realistic projection based on human behavior pits us at going for 10 billion people.
We live on a pale blue dot in space. Ecologically, I can't see how the planet can sustain the course we are on. Geopolitically, a blind cry for more dignified births will create the tinder that will spark the next great world war, when resources get more precious and humans continue to encroach on one another. What happened in California? Besides the effects of global climate change piled on by human influences, California's groundwater is already dramatically depleted. Ancient water basins in some places have all but vanished, and ground subsidence has kicked in (see image below showing historical ground elevation), and it is physically impossible to reverse that action, once those basins are collapsed there is no way to refill them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California
Just one example. We could also looked at China's awful pollution if we wanted to, or the real threats to Canada's wilderness, which accounts for a significant proportion of the globe's CO2 -> Oxygen conversion.
As much as I see abortion as an everyday preservation of the right to control her own body - she can inseminate herself as much as terminate - I see it as a truly necessary freedom, one that will in part help determine the fate of our great grandchildren. How sanctified will life be, if in 100 years we implode on ourselves? More life will be secured if we engage in more sustainable practices for our civilization.
I think the word you are looking for is a 'cull.'0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
No, you're referring to something completely different. I suggest you research the definition. If any stretch of the imagination, you might have tried to label it is eugenics, but that is again not what we are discussing.
No, 'cull' describes your approach much better than 'eugenics'.
'Eugenics' is an attempt, by selective breeding, to improve the genetic stock.
By advocating abortion as a means of population control, you were moving into the territory of culling rather than eugenics.
Btw 'researching the definition' does not mean googling a definition and then reading the first few lines of the definition from an online dictionary, but still not understanding the full meaning of a term.
Culling does not necessarily mean weeding out the inferior stock. It can also refer to killing a number of species simply to reduce the numbers, as with the badger culls that are carried out in the UK. Of course, even in a supposedly indiscriminate process, it is the weaker animals that usually end up getting killed.
So it is with abortion. Although supposedly applied indiscriminately, it is the children with 'undesirable' (in the eyes of the one who makes the choice) traits that still end up getting killed. So, for example, an unborn child is more likely to be aborted if it is female, and much more likely to be aborted if it has a condition such as Down Syndrome.
Another aspect of a cull is that the culled animals may, but not always, be utilised for profit or scientific research. In abortion terms this would involve aborted foetuses being used in laboratories, or even sold as a commercial product.
No, I think the word 'cull' very accurately describes the barbaric concept of using abortion as a tool of human population control.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
No, 'cull' describes your approach much better than 'eugenics'.
'Eugenics' is an attempt, by selective breeding, to improve the genetic stock.
By advocating abortion as a means of population control, you were moving into the territory of culling rather than eugenics.
Btw 'researching the definition' does not mean googling a definition and then reading the first few lines of the definition from an online dictionary, but still not understanding the full meaning of a term.
Culling does not necessarily mean weeding out the inferior stock. It can also refer to killing a number of species simply to reduce the numbers, as with the badger culls that are carried out in the UK. Of course, even in a supposedly indiscriminate process, it is the weaker animals that usually end up getting killed.
So it is with abortion. Although supposedly applied indiscriminately, it is the children with 'undesirable' (in the eyes of the one who makes the choice) traits that still end up getting killed. So, for example, an unborn child is more likely to be aborted if it is female, and much more likely to be aborted if it has a condition such as Down Syndrome.
Another aspect of a cull is that the culled animals may, but not always, be utilised for profit or scientific research. In abortion terms this would involve aborted foetuses being used in laboratories, or even sold as a commercial product.
No, I think the word 'cull' very accurately describes the barbaric concept of using abortion as a tool of human population control.
Then clearly you spectacularly failed at doing what I kindly suggested you do in the first place: research what culling is.
Culling has nothing to do with what happens during a pregnancy ex post facto. Culling, in agriculture, would for example be separating this group of black horses from this group of brown horses so they do not breed mixed-gene offspring.
Perhaps its a little closer to what you're trying to tar my viewpoint is when you're talking about fruit: the process whereby desirable/marketable fruit is harvested and fruit with defects/blemishes that otherwise will not get sold (and just rot) are discarded or composted.
However, I won't equivocate a fetus with a piece of fruit. Culling when discussing animals and in this case fetus', it would be closer to contraception, not abortion. Either way, the term means 2 essentially different things depending on their actual context, so trying to inject the term into this debate seems completely obsolete. To wit, Stargate Atlantis used the villains called The Wraith, who fed on 'the lifeforce' of humans. When they raided human worlds, it was called a 'culling', (not a harvest), similar to badger culling you mentioned, thus we have 3 different core definitions to what a culling is. What's the point of bringing such an obfuscating term into this discussion :rolleyes: No point at all, other than to try and score points by trying to label my viewpoint something nasty that can be dismissed out of hand. Not doing a good job of that I must say.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement