Abortion debate!

[Wolf]

The cutlery ads are still hilarious. But, I'm with Dante... it takes two to tango. And our modern legal system (at least in North America) does not provide for that. I think another layer of legal involvement is necessary.

[Sneakgab]

Firstly, I'd say that a fetus is no more a conscious being than a cow or a pig. I basically agree with Dante there. Why should it matter that it could become a conscious being? That's just ridiculous. Were all just matter configured in a way to consciousness. Maybe were not truly conscious or perhaps something beyond our understanding grants this conciousness. Regardless, one could take the subsituents of a human body and create a living human out of it (Of course not really, but I'm sure you all know that's not the point.) So then, should we take care not to react water to form new substances since this water could become ''living?''.

So from that, the tri-mester is irrelevant to me since if its ok to kill a cow to enjoy some steak then it's definitely okay to kill something that couldn't possibly be more conscious to avoid far greater pains.

On the matter of frivolous abortions... how can an abortion be frivolous? is it not painful and inconvenient? Why would someone use this as birth control instead of simple condoms, pills, infertility operations,e.t.c That just doesn't make sense. If as many people as Wolf implies use abortion as simple birth control then that simply doesn't make sense. Even if it's state subsidized and free, the hours spent on an abortion could be spent making enough money to simply buy a few condoms. Either Wolf's implication is incorrect or people are simply nuts ???

When it comes to differing desires to terminate/not terminate pregnancy from a (biological, at least) couple, I'd say that if either the man, woman, or both wish to terminate then the pregnancy should be terminated.

Here is the logic: If one partner wants a child and the other does not, then they can use adoption or a surrogate/sperm donor. Like this the party that wants a child gets it and the other need not fear unwanted pregnancy or what not. Of course, the wife/husband may want a baby with their significant other specifically. But hey, you obviously can't force someone to partake in a pregnancy. So if the woman wants a child and the man does not then he is free to leave, why should he be forced into something he doesn't want when the pregnancy is still able to be canceled? Of course, you should say that now that he has initiated the mechanism to bring a child into the world he should bare some responsibility, but if his wife wants the child then it is obvious that all he really did was carry out the physical part of it. If the timing was not as intended as the wife due at least partially to some error on part of the man then he should at least have to partially pay for the abortion and maybe recompensate the female for her others non-financial costs. If the man wants a child and the woman does not then of course she should be able to abort as pleased, not much of a big deal there.

So payment in case of abortion is dependent on responsibility and payment in case of having the child is dependent on whose decision that was via the ommision of abortion (commision basically = ommision. It is the decision that matters and bears responsibility.). This seems simply and fully reasonable (at least with specific situations and technicalities).

If the other party in the insemination cannot even be found, then of course the woman should be able to abort as she pleases, especially if she has to pay the financial costs. No reason to care for ''potential'' life and her wasting the time of doctors with frivolity is a rather impossible scenario.

Of course, abortion can be painful and expensive. I think that financial payment should depend on responsibility. In most cases that would be both man and woman who would be at fault for generating an undesired potential child.

Having/keeping a child and having a birth/bringing one into existence are two different things. Who ever actually wants to keep the child should be ones paying the costs for that. If a mother wants a child whilst her inseminator does not but doesn't mind impregnating her then I see no reason why can't he partake in this and then leave if he pleases so long as this is thoroughly discussed and agreed upon before hand.

Insemination and parenthood are two different agreements. This is how it normally is with surrogates so nothing unusual there.

As for the practical concerns, well lets look at the issue of declining population. Simply put, the govt can't reasonable force someone to have a child. In my view a fetus is a piece of meat providing the option of bringing a life into existence and has little significance, hence disallowing abortion is similar to forcing somebody to bring a child into existence via ommission. Ie: The decision to bring a child into existence was forced. Remember that generally speaking additional births is something that affects future generations. If there are no future generations, there is no reason for this one to care. Some people would be displeased at humanity ending in say a 100 years. As far as I'm concerned none of will be in existence any longer by that time and neither will anyone else so there is no reason to care. Yet, some concern themselves over things that have no noticeable effect on the living, so this will not be my only argument. I do say however that to me what is perceived may as well (but isn't) be reality so long as the actual reality does not affect the perception. So, if in reality I'm burning in the desert connected to a matrix-esque machine, that may as well be the same as actually living whatever illusion it is generating for me so long as my body does not die.

Anyway, if a declining population is a problem then there are probably many (the poor mostly) willing to serve as people factories for a price. Of course, the govt should bear the same responsibility as is mentioned throughout and then make sure these children are given full opportunity, unless of course they simple desire virtual slaves. But tyrannical and generally villanous govts of course have no use for ethical discussion.

More importantly, we should look at the practicality of the child who will require many things. It seems to me that unless a child can be garanteed proper support (school, uni, food, e.t.c.) until it's development is complete (at which said child can then reimburse those who invested in it during it's growth period). This provides the best possible ''contract'' as such. If the child does not wish re-imbursing as much after his growth period is over then he can choose for less support during his growth. Of course, this would be done as per the usual restriction on decision making that is placed upon one until legal age. So, probably only parents who can ensure full growth and therefore that option should be entitled to a child as they will otherwise be enforcing an inferior existence upon an involuntary with no control over this. Frankly, many people would rather not be born/ there were not born than suffer certain lifestyles/ what they have suffered. I guess they could always commit suicide if that is the case though, but then that option should be legally and practically provided as well. Also, killing ones self is not the same as never being born. Many would opt for the latter. Hence ideally max options should be provided.You might argue, that this ideal situation is not possible for potential births but then those births should simply not happen. Those who are not born do not care that they never live as they do not exist, therefore it is better to have a few experiencing good lives than many experiencing bad ones even if you think death is the ultimate ''bad''. So these potential births that cannot provide full options should never come to be (ideally speaking)

Remember, their are fates far worse than death and never coming into existence is not a fate at all. Take this into account when considering abortions. Why should the mother be troubled to bring a child into existence who rather have never been born?

[nemafakei]

"Neither is it fair for the mother to carry a baby to term when the father wants an abortion"

Assuming you're rejecting the "own stupid fault" argument, and given current society where fathers are required to pay maintenance because children are guaranteed little to nothing from society and must rely on their parents alone, correct. However, I'd say it's the less unfair option.

Even if you deny that childbirth is dangerous, "painful, inconvenient, humiliating, expensive, potentially risky and psychologically traumatic" as you put it still applies, and I don't think 'writing cheques' quite trumps that.

Trying to legislate for the sperm donor to have control just leaves you in potentially far worse depths of unfairness. If you went for the "check this box if you wish not to be responsible for the child" option, for example, the vast majority of men not in committed relationships with the mother would opt for termination, whether they want it or not, whenever they have a child by a woman they know won't terminate, just so they don't have the responsibility. Moreover, many men will take far less responsiblity for contraception on the grounds that they are not responsible for the maintenance any more.

"I'd say that if either the man, woman, or both wish to terminate then the pregnancy should be terminated."

Um, what if the does not wish to undergo an operation to terminate? Forcing her to comply is pretty barbaric, don't you think?

"Anyway, if a declining population is a problem"

I'd argue it's not at all a problem. Globally, we have a rapidly increasing population; if one nation's population is in decline, just invite more people in from places where population is getting too high.

[Sneakgab]

''"I'd say that if either the man, woman, or both wish to terminate then the pregnancy should be terminated."

Um, what if the does not wish to undergo an operation to terminate? Forcing her to comply is pretty barbaric, don't you think?''

Sorry, that's not exactly what I meant. It's more that if he doesn't want the child he shouldn't have to look after it in which case he should bare no responsibility. Change terminate pregnancy to ''have a child and look after it''.

So if the woman wants to terminate, no question. If the man wants to terminate, then this is a pivot point of their relationship. The man should be able to leave if he wants. Basically, if either one of them decide that it's not going to be child partnership type thing then there is no such partnership. So if a man knocks up a female and does wish a child then he should be able to leave provided he is willing to recompensate the female if she decides to go for abortion (if he bears any responsiblity). OF COURSE, if she wants to keep the child she can. Maybe a case of ''stolen sperm'' but the man should feel no liability over a child he did not wish be brought into existence if this is not his fault and all he did was take part in the mechanism. Kind of just forgot that scenario.

''"Anyway, if a declining population is a problem"

I'd argue it's not at all a problem. Globally, we have a rapidly increasing population; if one nation's population is in decline, just invite more people in from places where population is getting too high.''

Exactly what I thought. More likely it's a good thing.

''"Neither is it fair for the mother to carry a baby to term when the father wants an abortion"

Assuming you're rejecting the "own stupid fault" argument, and given current society where fathers are required to pay maintenance because children are guaranteed little to nothing from society and must rely on their parents alone, correct. However, I'd say it's the less unfair option.''

So, basically, my opinion here is that this is still at the abortion possible stage. In that case, if the father does not agree to a partnership to assist with the child's upbringing, the woman should take this into consideration when determining an abortion. Basically I view this stage as one not to far gone to change minds and correct mistakes (to put it in a horrible sounding way). The mother can choose to have a child and choose to bring it up (more horrible sounding words) if she so desires doing so without her husband. Frankly, I would personally dissallow this if she could not provide sufficient support to her child without her husband. She could choose to have a child which she knows she could not support or not have the child. The third option of having a child despite here inseminator's reluctance to parent said child shouldn't be an option as forcing people to labor towards you're desires is obviously not very ethical.

''Even if you deny that childbirth is dangerous, "painful, inconvenient, humiliating, expensive, potentially risky and psychologically traumatic" as you put it still applies, and I don't think 'writing cheques' quite trumps that.''

Hmm... most things are handled with ''cheques'' these days. What is the financial equivalent of this pain? Some have the mentality that a sufficiently large cheque can reimburse anything and buy anything too. Perhaps some kind of forced support could also be demanded. Regardless, as long as re-imbursement is possible through some means for the woman to extract from the man who bares at least partial responsibility for her current predicament that is the best that can be done.

[chatfsh]

If I were charged with the responsibility for legislating abortion law, it would go something like this

[nemafakei]

Hwi, there's this persistent weird question of "can the father demand that the mother get an abortion" and can they get special dispensation not to be responsible if she says no?

[Kokiri-Mentat]

this was my post from the comission vs omission thread. so the first part may not make sense unless you read the last bits of that thread first.

equivalate a person being pushed into the pool as abortion and the girl falling into a pool as a fetus becoming a human.  There is debate as to whether a fetus is a human being, however there is no question that a fetus won't become a person eventually without direct interference, and abortion is an interference.  So by aborting the fetus you have in fact prevented it from becoming a human, which would be like pushing the girl into a pool with no chance of rescuing her from drowning.  She's dead, the fetus is dead.

The question isn't whether your preventing something a chance at life or not. The question is this: is it as morally unjustifiable to prevent something from obtaining a human life as it is to end a human life?  The constitution doesn't guarantee rights of potential U.S citizens, only current US citizens.  So it's not a legal question just a moral one, one that will either be supported by law or not.

Since people can't agree on the death penalty why should people agree on abortion?  guess that's the way it goes. but yea i would still say that commission vs. omission could be used in the abortion debate, albeit not to achieve a final opinion, but to at least narrow down the underlying topic of objection

[chatfsh]

Hwi, there's this persistent weird question of "can the father demand that the mother get an abortion" and can they get special dispensation not to be responsible if she says no?

I have reconsidered that portion of the abortion code that I outlined in my previous post.  Namely, that if a man gets a woman pregnant and she decides to go through with the pregnancy against his will

[Dante]

There...I think that this addresses the concerns of the mother, father and unborn child.  Did I overlook any major points?

No, seems fair. I wouldn't disagree with it, anyway.

I do, however, think that while accidental pregnancies are often the result of carelessness or idiocy, they are sometimes just what they seem - accidents. And if one parent has moral objections to killing the foetus while the other one does not, it seems unfair to penalise either of them.

There have also been cases of women (or men? I don't know, but maybe) who have engineered a pregnancy in order to keep a partner with them. A quick slip of the hand and voila, instant legal obligation for the next eighteen years or so. If the father wants out of this situation, when the pregnancy was not even accidental but maliciously caused, there should be a way. Such as not being held responsible for the child.

Even if you deny that childbirth is dangerous, "painful, inconvenient, humiliating, expensive, potentially risky and psychologically traumatic" as you put it still applies, and I don't think 'writing cheques' quite trumps that.

Mm, depends how much money. It would be quite a lot, raising a child.

[Acriku]

My question is, why the difference between the first and second trimester in giving out rights? Say the mother doesn't even find out she is pregnant until the first trimester is passed (which does happen, mostly to large women I believe), would we treat that as the first trimester then?

A large problem involving absolvement and inclusion of responsibility is that the father and the mother could abuse either part to their own means. I don't think legislation should follow until there are clear scenarios cut out that cannot be abused by simply saying it so.

For example, the father could say that the mother impregnated herself maliciously. Or the mother could say she is psychologically being traumatized by the child-rearing or will incur depression afterwards.

Another thing, Hwi, is that abstinence from sex or operating on sexual organs are hardly viable choices. The former represses sexual urges and hormones and the latter is an extreme that costs a bit of money. Being smart about sex is the only way to go for most people. Both consenting adults using condoms, with the lady on a control pill, should be okay.

[chatfsh]

There have also been cases of women (or men? I don't know, but maybe) who have engineered a pregnancy in order to keep a partner with them. A quick slip of the hand and voila, instant legal obligation for the next eighteen years or so. If the father wants out of this situation, when the pregnancy was not even accidental but maliciously caused, there should be a way. Such as not being held responsible for the child.

Yes, I agree that there are some duplicitous women who may go after celebrities or wealthy men with the express intention of trapping the man with a pregnancy.  Even if they do not keep the man, they can still take him to court and demand large sums of child support and alimony if marriage is involved.  (Men of lesser means can fall victim to this too, but I don

[Dante]

Heh. I feel so smug about this. STDs are still an issue of course, but an unwanted pregnancy? *snort* It's laughable, really.

I was thinking less of casual sex, but instances when couples in long-term relationships have been less than honest with each other regarding the precautions they were using. That is, when one party betrays the other's trust.

One could certainly make an argument that the only way to be absolutely sure to avoid pregnancy is to make it physically impossible (*chuckle*), but the expense and rigmarole make it seem largely a wasted effort, especially when or if the time comes to undo the process. Of course compared to raising a child it's nothing... But I still think that temporary castration is a bit extreme. Effective, but perhaps not an entirely sensible course for most people to take.

My question is, why the difference between the first and second trimester in giving out rights? Say the mother doesn't even find out she is pregnant until the first trimester is passed (which does happen, mostly to large women I believe), would we treat that as the first trimester then?

A medical differentiation seems as a good a point as any to draw a legal line. Better than most, in fact. In other words: the difference is there because it's convenient.

[Acriku]

A convenience without any other reason seems to be lazy legislation. If there isn't a reason for a line drawn between the 1st and 2nd trimester (or between 2nd and 3rd), then it shouldn't be drawn. And then let there be two situations for legislature instead of three.

[chatfsh]

Temporary sterilization is not that extreme and most insurance companies will cover the cost of the procedure.  However, I

[Dante]

Because the point is completely moot as far as I'm concerned. The only way it's ever going to happen is if I have sex with a woman which, while possible, is sufficiently outlandish as to be dismissed as a silly idea. So I watch the consternation of others debating safe sex in order to avoid pregnancy, the statistics of foolish couples who didn't realise that pulling out is not a contraceptive method, the measures that some are willing to go to to ensure that they are not saddled with a child, and I can't help feeling a little smug.

It's a kind of detached amusement at the expense of others.

The heart starts beating at a different point from when the brain takes shape. Some nerve and muscle tissue is already in place before the foetus looks remotely human. The lungs, independent life, do not start to function until the baby is actually born. I forget exactly why the medical line is drawn between the trimesters, but the fact is that it is, and that it does make sense for legal lines to follow medical ones.

After all, medicine knows human biology better than lawyers do.

[chatfsh]

Well

[Dante]

Oh don't be peevish. :P By now I imagine everyone knows that I'm something of a sadist. This is just another manifestation.

The usual retort is "Yes, but how would you like it if someone gained amusement from your discomfort?" To which I reply that I'm sure someone does. *shrug* I certainly would if I wasn't me. Sometimes I do anyway.

Anyways. I think we've just about covered this one. Next debate, anyone? How about fur farms?

[Sneakgab]

''I have reconsidered that portion of the abortion code that I outlined in my previous post.  Namely, that if a man gets a woman pregnant and she decides to go through with the pregnancy against his will

[Egeides]

As comment on one aspect (for Hwi):

Here is where the wisdom comes in on the man

[chatfsh]

I, for one, am perfectly content to let this debate die.  But I just wanted to respond to the last two posts.

The stupidity fine and associated fees would not prevent the abortion from taking place.  These fines and fees can be billed to the couple after the procedure is done.  I suggested garnishing their future wages to make sure that they don

[MrFlibble]

I don't know about the legality issues actually, but abortion is absolutely unreasonable from the evolutionary point of view. Why should we ever dismiss the unique combination of features, a unique human being which is the unborn child simply because their parents "do not want" them? Or the parents cannot afford to have a child financially - does it mean in 100% cases the child will starve, will never be adopted or the like? If there's a risk to the mother's health, who will decide whose life is more important - the mother's or the child's? What right do we have to decide such things?

I'm not talking about the sanctity of human life per se. It's rather that individual humans are the resources of humanity. One does not waste one's resources, even if they're expendable. Waste not, want not.

[Dante]

Population > 6 billion.

I think we can afford to lose a few.

Hundred.

Thousand.

[Sneakgab]

Well, that pretty sums up the resource issue.

''If there's a risk to the mother's health, who will decide whose life is more important - the mother's or the child's? What right do we have to decide such things?''

When there is no ''child's life'' to speak of, the decision seems easy to make. When it comes to something that could debatably be considered to be alive, that is a different story. However, we kill such organisms very frequently for fairly frivolous purposes with it being the general acceptance that this is not tantamount to murder of a human being. Since we take about murdering animals because they taste good, I can only see two justifications:

1: These animals are short lived, if we see murder as preventing and deciding against an amount of life, then one might say that murdering something with a 1 day life span if better than murdering something with a year life span. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that.

2: Level of consciousness. You can't feel bad about every ant you step on right? The idea is that these organisms are not truly conscious.

Of course it's a tricky area. Can you really speak of ''levels of consciousness''? does this translate into ''levels of murder'' as though you killed something half conscious? Since the first justification seems moot (though it has some wisdom in it, as a justification for the slaughter of animals it doesn't work that well) we rely on the second. Otherwise we must consider ourselves horrible mass murderers little different to monsters like ogres. We have to base our distinction of level of consciousness on something and so we base it on the development of the organisms cerebral and neural functions. In this regard we  murder things more highly developed than an unborn baby in all but (if even that) the closest to unborn phase. With this serving as our only viable (as far as I can see) distinction of consciosness I don't see why we should stop our slaughter of such organisms at unborn babies. Besides all this, I remind again that there are fates far worse than death that can befall such babies as a result of their parents being far from model or have a poor fiscal situation. Many times these children would rather be dead IMO.

''Or the parents cannot afford to have a child financially - does it mean in 100% cases the child will starve, will never be adopted or the like?''

Obviously not in 100%, but just because there is a chance of avoiding an ill fate doesn't mean you should go along with it. It all just goes into the cost benefit analysis. In most of these cases the child will not live a pleasurable life. If you can avoid terminating an unborn baby via an adoption that is beneficial to the adoptees (you know what I mean) then of course you may as well do that. This is for when the pregnancy has proceeded to the state in which this child could be considered conscious. Otherwise, if the mother wants an abortion to avoid the pains of pregnancy then it doesn't seem very reasonable to force her to complete her pregnancy so that somebody else can benefit from her baby (unless maybe she has nothing better to do so that the overall cost is lower than the benefit and lower than in the case of said children desiring people having the child themselves. Of course, this excludes the possibility that they are unable to in which case one might consider the greater benefit and perhaps concepts of ''deserving'' in deciding whether a woman should be forced to complete her pregnancy for the sake of others having a child. Ie: if this mother was a mass murderer or something some might view her as ''deserving'' to be turned into a baby factory as constructive punishment for her crime.

However, all this talk that is beginning to explore the strangest of possibilities is, I suspect, quite unnecessary; There are probably more than enough children to satisfy adoption needs so I doubt we even need to consider this possibility. I have given it some glancing mention though for the sake of thoroughness. So if the child is alive and can be adopted at no costs then go ahead. Obviously though, carrying to term despite the wishes of the pregnant implies costs though.

''abortion is absolutely unreasonable from the evolutionary point of view''

An evolutionary view? Do you mean a view or set of ethics in which evolution or the generation of different organisms is necessarily a good thing by axiom/definition. Most likely you mean that the progress and development of ''superior'' life forms is either indirectly good or good by axiom. In this latter case I remind you that evolution is not the progress of organims from one form to a new superior one. Evolution only makes species more adapted to their current conditions and not necessarily better. For example: I don't necessarily consider small lizards to be superior to their pre-historic brethren. I might go so far as to suggest that there is no such thing as superior, only best adapted. Though one might argue that some species are better on average or something. However, I would rather not follow this as it would probably be an excessive digression. On the matter of generation of different species. This will probably happen regardless. It does not matter if the pop size is reduced this will only reduce the speed (so long as the pop size does not hit 0 or 1 obviously). Even if one wants to optimize the note it is obvious that abortion or not will probably not have too much affect (though, the numbers given for America may suggest otherwise). The final qualm someone might have on this topic is that we are making evolution less naturally selective and more artificially selective. Well, is there anything wrong with? Why should it be so wrong that mankind turn evolution to its purposes. The obvious response would be that this is playing God. Maybe it is too much responsibility for man to exert to much control, but in this case we are only speaking about abortion which is far from complete control of man's evolution. Therefore once again there seems no large concern here.

''Why should we ever dismiss the unique combination of features, a unique human being which is the unborn child''

Alternatively, why should we embrace and value at all unique combinations of features? There are indirect reasons but none of them seem very good. Once again I say that abortion is not that big of a factor here. These combinations of features will still be developed at a rate that should be satisfactory to those who for whatever reason care about. Whether they should care is another argument entirely and since conciseness is apparently not my forte this is yet another topic I will avoid for now.

[MrFlibble]

Population > 6 billion.

I think we can afford to lose a few.

Hundred.

Thousand.

Well, that pretty sums up the resource issue.

No, it doesn't. Even though it describes the current state of affairs and the contemporary attitude, these more than 6 billion people are not like 6 billion nails or screwdrivers. Every single human is a unique combination of different features, some of which might be beneficial to humanity. It is known that, for example, intellectual capacity is determined by the inborn biological traits of an organism; education only allows to develop that which is already present in an individual.

Who knows what things we have lost by the simple excuse of somebody's reluctance to undergo the "inconveniences" of pregnancy?

''If there's a risk to the mother's health, who will decide whose life is more important - the mother's or the child's? What right do we have to decide such things?''

When there is no ''child's life'' to speak of, the decision seems easy to make. When it comes to something that could debatably be considered to be alive, that is a different story. However, we kill such organisms very frequently for fairly frivolous purposes with it being the general acceptance that this is not tantamount to murder of a human being.

Once again, I was not talking about the moral aspect of choosing who shall live. I was talking about the fact that there's no chance we'd know humanity would benefit from the continued life of either the mother or the child when it comes to such decisions. What if you kill a potential future Mozart or Einstein? If you knew for sure that an unborn child would become a brilliant scientist or politician, would you forfeit the mother's life?

In my opinion, such problems cannot be resolved, but I thought it necessary to point them out anyway.

An evolutionary view? Do you mean a view or set of ethics in which evolution or the generation of different organisms is necessarily a good thing by axiom/definition. Most likely you mean that the progress and development of ''superior'' life forms is either indirectly good or good by axiom. In this latter case I remind you that evolution is not the progress of organims from one form to a new superior one. Evolution only makes species more adapted to their current conditions and not necessarily better.

A misunderstanding once again. It's probably my fault, I had to be more precise, but didn't have time to. I don't view evolution as "progress" in any way, I certainly share your opinion about adaptation being the central point of the concept of evolution. I wanted to say that the adaptive strength of humanity lies in the diversity of individual human organisms. A society comprised entirely of Einsteins, or Mozarts, or Arnold Schwarzeneggers for that matter, would inevitably stagnate. Only different individuals with different capacities allow us to adapt in such an efficient way. Killing an unborn child means a lost opportunity the same way denying a child proper education does. Of course, the uniqueness of each human has its limits, and specific traits repeated in numerous humans (like different scientists independently make similar discoveries), but it's always good to have a backup, isn't it?

The problem is, I've seen here too much talk about how an unwanted pregnancy is "inconvenient" for people and such. I'm very bitter about this. Have you forgotten that you don't live in a vacuum, for your own pleasure? Being human means responsibility for all humanity as a whole. This responsibility is relatively small for a single human, but it is there none the less. Egoistic approach will mean certain doom to all of us.

Rot at the core spreads outward.

You'll find out what that means soon enough.

[Sneakgab]

''No, it doesn't. Even though it describes the current state of affairs and the contemporary attitude, these more than 6 billion people are not like 6 billion nails or screwdrivers. Every single human is a unique combination of different features, some of which might be beneficial to humanity. It is known that, for example, intellectual capacity is determined by the inborn biological traits of an organism; education only allows to develop that which is already present in an individual.

Who knows what things we have lost by the simple excuse of somebody's reluctance to undergo the "inconveniences" of pregnancy?''

Well then I guess we better get the baby factories pumping because otherwise were losing out on DNA sequences via ommission. Besides, I did mention that abortion probably doesn't cut down on birth rates that much. Maybe that is not true, I do not know as I do not have the numbers.

''Once again, I was not talking about the moral aspect of choosing who shall live. I was talking about the fact that there's no chance we'd know humanity would benefit from the continued life of either the mother or the child when it comes to such decisions. What if you kill a potential future Mozart or Einstein? If you knew for sure that an unborn child would become a brilliant scientist or politician, would you forfeit the mother's life?

In my opinion, such problems cannot be resolved, but I thought it necessary to point them out anyway.''

We have to consider the chance of vs the suffering that might be caused by the birth and make cost-benefit analysis based on that. If the child cannot be brought up properly then his only contribution will be genetic material. You could play the lotto as you might win a lot of money. However, the cost per % chance of winning this money is on average not worth it. I think that this is probably the case with these unborn children

''The problem is, I've seen here too much talk about how an unwanted pregnancy is "inconvenient" for people and such. I'm very bitter about this. Have you forgotten that you don't live in a vacuum, for your own pleasure? Being human means responsibility for all humanity as a whole. This responsibility is relatively small for a single human, but it is there none the less. Egoistic approach will mean certain doom to all of us.''

It's not about OWN ''pleasure'', it is about the happiness and well being of all humanity. The greater good, basically. It may have been described as ''inconvenient'' but it's pretty obvious that is much more than a minor nuisance. Being human MEANS nothing other than your genetic code is as such that you are considered part of that species. I suspect that most would say that no one has the right to decide what the responsibilities the entire human race is held to.