Abortion Rights May 2022 and why this should matter to you

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,783
Location
USA
houck.png

FBI Arrest of Pro-Life Catholic Dad Ignites Firestorm of Blowback​


 

Morgan

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
139
No, it's not. In fact, many posts and members have claimed exactly the opposite.... that every mistake, every disease, any condition (even a long term one) has the possibility to be reversed/cured given the right environment. That often involves simple, straight forward fixes.
Simple, straight forward fixes? Some issues can take many years to remedy, and not everyone has the luxury of acquiring the knowledge needed nor the financial security to even begin that process. There are some "conditions" that can only be managed in an ideal state, and they will always remain at the mercy of the environment that others have created.
Ridiculous. Sure, to do all of the above perfectly may require some extra money, but why would you let "perfect" be the enemy of "good?" You can always make better choices within your budget, and plan for longer term changes.
Just "some extra money"? That is a highly variable statement, and it is quite obvious for some people that it is an impossibility; regardless, someone will be without. I can not justify the immense suffering that some people will experience in order for this subjective "good" to exist. What you call "good" is only obtained by the temporary relief from the various forms of suffering forced upon us, we are submerged into a state of deprivation and seek only to escape it; hunger, shelter, boredom, satisfaction or purpose.. and of course, loneliness.
Being that there's only like tens of thousands of members on this forum, and billions of people in the world, this is totally irrelevant, even if it were true.
It is absolutely relevant, because if we are to build a better society we have to first uplift people from the miasma of their state of health. How could it possibly be irrelevant if all of us have to take on the burden of every child brought into this world? More importantly, why support bringing forth more hungry mouths when there are children without homes right now? Why not adopt? Where is the outcry for that? All in favor of the selfish gene I suppose..
Do you even Peat, bro? One of the reasons Peat has constantly recommended milk and orange juice is because they are relatively cheap, nutritious, and widely available. You don't hear him recommending "pounds of organic tropical fruit," even if that would be beneficial.

For example, I have heard him talk about how eating lobster every once in a while is healthy. But he knows it's a really expensive food. So, he doesn't talk about it much. But, if you can afford to eat lobster every month, he would probably think that's a good thing for your health. But, not totally necessary.
Relatively cheap, is well, relative.. Search these forums for the quality of store bought orange juice, the various problems that people have had with certain brands of milk, and what exactly were to happen if more people became aware of the steps they need to take in order to restore the well being that was imposed or stolen from them? I suppose we just have to come to terms with the casualties of chance?
Wut? So that's the only two choices....... perfect existence or termination? Average, good, and great just isn't a possibility in your world? Striving towards improvement isn't a thing?

I have two nephews, both who probably have had many vaccines in their lives, and they both seem to be in pretty good health, and both seem to be pretty happy, and both incredibly smart for their age. So, because they may not have perfect health, you think they should just be wiped off the planet? Everything you are saying about abortion here could be applied to murder, euthanaisa or genocide. Not a good argument, and not a side I would be on, personally.
You are conflating what happens to someone after they are born to the decision of not bringing someone into this world at all, it is a ridiculous logical fallacy. There is a vast difference in disrupting the life of individuals that have already been programmed by the "will to live" compared to not forcing someone into this thresher we call "life". Even though I am staunchly antinatalistic; I still have a personal drive to live, I still seek to better the lives of others and myself.. because fundamentally suffering is the moral question, we can alleviate that by helping others, but the greatest act is to not impose suffering upon someone else by bringing them into existence. So, while you may be comfortable with how this world is, or accept the pain and process in shaping what it could potentially be; there are many others who aren't, and they are forced to lie to themselves in one way or another just to continue..
It is not a "best case scenario." You are describing a bad, below average (yet becoming more common) case scenario.
I haven't met a single person that hasn't been damaged or compromised by the world we have created for ourselves, by nature itself, by the mess we make and are forced to clean up. I have seen brilliant people fall into that "downward spiral" and yet they are unaware of how they even got there.. one such casualty would be my friend who eventually committed suicide, even though she desperately attempted to treat or medicate the pain of her perception; I empathized with her when she couldn't take to heart what I believed would be potentially helpful solutions or to at least curtail the familiarity of how she felt, and I understood why, since it took me many years to even set myself on a "optimal" path.. Maybe I didn't try hard enough or if things were just a little bit different, perhaps I would be in her place, and she would be here posting on these forums. Was there even any "choice" in the matter?
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Simple, straight forward fixes? Some issues can take many years to remedy, and not everyone has the luxury of acquiring the knowledge needed nor the financial security to even begin that process.
Of course some issues can take longer than others. Your second claim is ridiculous. How much "financial security" does it take to get a computer and internet connection, and start researching your issue? Everyone here has done that.
There are some "conditions" that can only be managed in an ideal state, and they will always remain at the mercy of the environment that others have created.
Disagree. I think all conditions have the potential to be reversed, although it may take time and effort to reverse them. In some conditions that seem "permanent," it may take a lot of experimentation and research
Just "some extra money"? That is a highly variable statement, and it is quite obvious for some people that it is an impossibility; regardless, someone will be without.
First off, if you read that statement, I did say that everyone can make better decisions within their budget. And if people think it's an "impossibility" to get some extra money, then the main thing holding them back is themselves. Everyone has unlimited potential.

And while it is likely that some people will be "without," it's not a certainty.
I can not justify the immense suffering that some people will experience in order for this subjective "good" to exist. What you call "good" is only obtained by the temporary relief from the various forms of suffering forced upon us, we are submerged into a state of deprivation and seek only to escape it; hunger, shelter, boredom, satisfaction or purpose.. and of course, loneliness.
Not relevant to what I was saying. I was talking about making better choices in your own life, something that everyone can do.
It is absolutely relevant, because if we are to build a better society we have to first uplift people from the miasma of their state of health. How could it possibly be irrelevant if all of us have to take on the burden of every child brought into this world? More importantly, why support bringing forth more hungry mouths when there are children without homes right now? Why not adopt? Where is the outcry for that? All in favor of the selfish gene I suppose..
Again, not relevant. I don't know who this "we" is, but I don't think the burden of EVERY child brought into this world falls on the shoulders of one single group or individual. Obviously, it should fall to the parents of that child. Traditionally, your children are your property. And if the parents abdicate that responsibility, there are others who will volunteer or provide that care.

I don't know if you've bothered to look around in this world, but there are many people and organizations that DO encourage and practice adoption.
You are conflating what happens to someone after they are born to the decision of not bringing someone into this world at all, it is a ridiculous logical fallacy. There is a vast difference in disrupting the life of individuals that have already been programmed by the "will to live" compared to not forcing someone into this thresher we call "life". Even though I am staunchly antinatalistic; I still have a personal drive to live, I still seek to better the lives of others and myself.. because fundamentally suffering is the moral question, we can alleviate that by helping others, but the greatest act is to not impose suffering upon someone else by bringing them into existence. So, while you may be comfortable with how this world is, or accept the pain and process in shaping what it could potentially be; there are many others who aren't, and they are forced to lie to themselves in one way or another just to continue..
And you are conflating abortion with birth control. I'm certainly not against birth control. Birth control has many forms, including contraceptives, morning after pills, and engaging in more responsible sexual practices, including, of course, abstaining.

I think it's ridiculous to be "antinatalistic," as to be against procreation is to wish for a dead world.
 

Morgan

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
139
Of course some issues can take longer than others. Your second claim is ridiculous. How much "financial security" does it take to get a computer and internet connection, and start researching your issue? Everyone here has done that.
It would depend on their circumstances, and it is an issue that is more than just acquiring the necessary tools to even begin to research; some people are trapped in an state of being overworked, they don't have the time nor the energy.. and they were born into an environment that made this their only deterministic reality.
Disagree. I think all conditions have the potential to be reversed, although it may take time and effort to reverse them. In some conditions that seem "permanent," it may take a lot of experimentation and research
Even conditions that one has upon birth? Issues with genetics or epigenetics? Sure, I concede that with enough will and time that anything could potentially be corrected, but it may not be in their life time, and it will rest upon the mercy of another's genius.
First off, if you read that statement, I did say that everyone can make better decisions within their budget. And if people think it's an "impossibility" to get some extra money, then the main thing holding them back is themselves. Everyone has unlimited potential.

And while it is likely that some people will be "without," it's not a certainty.
Everyone has unlimited potential? There is a finite amount of resources, money is ultimately pointless in this game, and the process of one reaching their potential, they may invariably remove that choice from someone else.. freedom from freedom, in that while some of the "choices" that people make can benefit a collective, it is often not the case, and will become ever more apparent in the coming years.
Not relevant to what I was saying. I was talking about making better choices in your own life, something that everyone can do.
You said "why would you let "perfect" be the enemy of "good?"" hence my statement, and again, I disagree that it is something that everyone can do. It is very likely in some environments that the decisions one person makes to better their own life can negatively impact the lives of others, intentionally or not.
Again, not relevant. I don't know who this "we" is, but I don't think the burden of EVERY child brought into this world falls on the shoulders of one single group or individual. Obviously, it should fall to the parents of that child. Traditionally, your children are your property. And if the parents abdicate that responsibility, there are others who will volunteer or provide that care.

I don't know if you've bothered to look around in this world, but there are many people and organizations that DO encourage and practice adoption.
Yet that burden does indeed fall upon everyone, do you pay taxes? The systems we build and communities we work towards are in support of other peoples personal decisions, and yet, ironically it is very much not a personal issue. The fact that a child is property is questionable in itself, and I have looked into adoption; it is far more difficult for one to adopt than it is to just get "knocked up" on a weekend. The system seems to be intentionally designed to discourage adoption, or one is vetted as being able to even care for the child.. and yet this isn't true when people procreate?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNiJ-59oeVk
And you are conflating abortion with birth control. I'm certainly not against birth control. Birth control has many forms, including contraceptives, morning after pills, and engaging in more responsible sexual practices, including, of course, abstaining.

I think it's ridiculous to be "antinatalistic," as to be against procreation is to wish for a dead world.
I wasn't directly talking about abortion, which I find to be morally questionable as well, but I view it as a lesser of evil when done very early and especially in relation to the topic of bodily autonomy.

The phrase "to wish for a dead world" can only be said by the living, in that we view that which is "dead" as a negative because we are alive. It is not that I wish for a dead world, it's that I wish there was a world in which death was never even a possibility.. that there was never life here to begin with. If we were to compare Earth to Venus, would one look upon Venus and lament that there is no life there? Or do we just see its bright and volcanic beauty for what it is?
 
Last edited:

Old Irenaeus

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
1,127
The phrase "to wish for a dead world" can only be said by the living, in that we view that which is "dead" as a negative because we are alive. It is not that I wish for a dead world, it's that I wish there was a world in which death was never even a possibility.. that there was never life here to begin with. If we were to compare Earth to Venus, would one look upon Venus and lament that there is no life there? Or do we just see its bright and volcanic beauty for what it is?
Be the change you want to see in the world. 🙈 JK...get some help.
 
Back
Top Bottom