Abortion - Pro-life or Pro-choice

[SeventhSandwich]

again time is already layed out forever, until it ends. so your abortion'd baby couldnt of been a doctor/serial killer in the first place.

time already determined that it was going to be aborted.

That's a really nihilistic attitude.

[Ad Bot]

[Clone v.117]

Pro-circumstances

[BanishedLetters]

again time is already layed out forever, until it ends. so your abortion'd baby couldnt of been a doctor/serial killer in the first place.

time already determined that it was going to be aborted.

You are hurting my brain.

[ultimamax]

You are hurting my brain.

He's saying time is set in stone because free will is an illusion, and thusly said abortions were going to happen anyway.

[Chrono]

What he doesn't realize is that what was also 'set in stone' is that these people will convince people to change their mind on abortion, and that the abortions were not going to happen to begin with.

It can go either way.

[Gojira]

I could care less about abortion, as long as the person having the abortion pays for it in full.

[T3HZ3N0N]

He's saying time is set in stone because free will is an illusion, and thusly said abortions were going to happen anyway.

That's a really nihilistic attitude.

what you think would be free will is not, like saying "i am going to think about a sandwich", you think that's your own free will right? its not, nope. time already said "YOU ARE GOING TO THINK ABOUT A SANDWICH, NOW." and you thought about it without consent giving you the illusion of free will.


and that concludes zeno's science lesson of the day

What he doesn't realize is that what was also 'set in stone' is that these people will convince people to change their mind on abortion, and that the abortions were not going to happen to begin with.

It can go either way.

what if time already said that the people will change their minds about abortion?

[ultimamax]

What he doesn't realize is that what was also 'set in stone' is that these people will convince people to change their mind on abortion, and that the abortions were not going to happen to begin with.

It can go either way.

Exactly. Something like the observer effect, right?

[Thar]

Ok sorry guys I forgot about this thread. In my opinion I think the "population control" argument is bullstuff.

In the first place, I don't think abortion happens often enough to have a significant impact on the population. Secondly, the world is capable of handling a few billion more people if we could only handle our resources in a responsible and effective manner. For example, the U.S. government subsidizes farmers to NOT produce all they can in order to keep the price of food up and help the economy. Relieving policies like this (or better yet doing away with them) could allow us to care for a larger population.

As of right now we produce enough food to care for the world's population. I don't think we're overpopulated.

[T3HZ3N0N]

Ok sorry guys I forgot about this thread. In my opinion I think the "population control" argument is bullstuff.

In the first place, I don't think abortion happens often enough to have a significant impact on the population. Secondly, the world is capable of handling a few billion more people if we could only handle our resources in a responsible and effective manner. For example, the U.S. government subsidizes farmers to NOT produce all they can in order to keep the price of food up and help the economy. Relieving policies like this (or better yet doing away with them) could allow us to care for a larger population.

As of right now we produce enough food to care for the world's population. I don't think we're overpopulated.

uh




welcome to africa

[Aerodynamic Monkatraz]

As of right now we produce enough food to care for the world's population. I don't think we're overpopulated.

It doesn't mean in that sense, it means in the sense we won't have enough resources in the future to supply, or even shelter. There is too many of us and not enough free land for it.

[Thar]

It doesn't mean in that sense, it means in the sense we won't have enough resources in the future to supply, or even shelter. There is too many of us and not enough free land for it.

The United States is underpopulated compared to other countries in comparison to land.

uh




welcome to africa

We have the capacity to care for them, its just now "economically profitable."

[SeventhSandwich]

Ok sorry guys I forgot about this thread. In my opinion I think the "population control" argument is bullstuff.

In the first place, I don't think abortion happens often enough to have a significant impact on the population. Secondly, the world is capable of handling a few billion more people if we could only handle our resources in a responsible and effective manner. For example, the U.S. government subsidizes farmers to NOT produce all they can in order to keep the price of food up and help the economy. Relieving policies like this (or better yet doing away with them) could allow us to care for a larger population.

As of right now we produce enough food to care for the world's population. I don't think we're overpopulated.

You do realize the US population accounts for like 4% of the world population?

[Thar]

You do realize the US population accounts for like 4% of the world population?

Yes, but the point I'm making is that we underproduce on purpose and we COULD care for a much larger population.

[SeventhSandwich]

Yes, but the point I'm making is that we underproduce on purpose and we COULD care for a much larger population.

What do you base that conclusion on exactly?

The average human consumes around 1715 pounds of food a year.

Show me the evidence that the US can produce the necessary 6.045 billion tons of food a year to feed the world.